official studs and duds week 2 @ minnesota
- Thread starter King of Jeans
- Start date
As for the game this was a classic Rodgers/MM loss. Rodgers was struggling Lacy was starting to break out during the second half and was starting to punish the Vikings defense. So naturally keep going away from Lacy and keep trying to rely on Rodgers scatter armed play. We saw similar losses against KC in 2011 and the Buffalo Bills in 2014.
Studs: Clay Matthews Nick Perry and Mike Daniels. Those guys came to play. Heck put the entire defensive front seven in this list. Eddie Lacy also belongs up here.
Duds: Aaron Rodgers and the entire secondary.
Studs: Clay Matthews Nick Perry and Mike Daniels. Those guys came to play. Heck put the entire defensive front seven in this list. Eddie Lacy also belongs up here.
Duds: Aaron Rodgers and the entire secondary.
Last year i said it... With out Shields our secondary isnt really good.
Munch
NFL Owner
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The offense continuing to struggle mightily at the start of this season is comcerning. Rodgers has looked off for most of both games so far and has to get back to an elite level for the team to have a chance competing for another Lombardi Trophy. Ball security was absolutely terrible yesterday. McCarthy not kicking the field goal to tie the game was mind-boggling. It was pretty obvious to everyone Randall wasn't able to cover Diggs yet the coaching staff didn't put someone else on the Vikings receiver.
The run defense has been surprisingly good so far. Unfortunately that's the only unit that has performed above expectations.
The run defense has been surprisingly good so far. Unfortunately that's the only unit that has performed above expectations.
Lakekab
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2015
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
Dud- Mike McStupid, worst head coach in NFC North by a long shot. Sit Rodgers the entire preseason because superman doesn't need to practice. 4-5 games into the season and Rodgers might have his game back. Mike Zimmer looks like the next Bill Belichick.
I think that Joe Whitt's cornerback development was off this last training camp. He should have had Randall focus exclusively at outside cornerback instead of expanding his role to play in the nickel. He's still a developing conversion player at the CB position and he probably won't really get it until his third year.
You know what is sad about this comment? Shields is not that good, at least not 9 million per year good...
I disagree, sometimes he's 12 million per year good... and then others he's like 6 million per year good. But no he never really does play at the 9 million dollar level. Consistency has never been his strength. He'll shut down a top receiver one week and then get scorched by a journeyman the next.
You seem to keep saying that. Are you trying to get her to go for you rather than him?
I think our defense has been very different without a healthy Shields over the past 2-3 seasons
You are right except sometimes he looks likes he is not worth the cotton the money is printed on which is why I probably have an overall lower opinion of him
who would have thought? I figured they'd be serviceable until Pennel got back and our offense would score us enough points so the run D wouldn't really be an issue. Looks like I nailed that one.
Carl
Cheesehead
I didn't see any complaints last week when going for it on 4th and short worked.
Running with Starks out of shotgun was most likely was to not show run. I guarantee if they lined up in a power look with Lacy and then didnt pick it up, he'd be blamed for being predictable.
I also don't see anyone saying it was a poor choice for the Vikings to go for it earlier.
The point is, the only reason MM is being criticized for they play is because it didn't work, not because of the decision itself.
Running with Starks out of shotgun was most likely was to not show run. I guarantee if they lined up in a power look with Lacy and then didnt pick it up, he'd be blamed for being predictable.
I also don't see anyone saying it was a poor choice for the Vikings to go for it earlier.
The point is, the only reason MM is being criticized for they play is because it didn't work, not because of the decision itself.
Normally I would be in 100% agreement with you but in this case and game situation it was not a really good choice. And the play call or the change of play at the line of scrimmage was very poor and there is no sugar coating it.
The sequence of plays from third and 1 was baffling, why not try a halfback/fullback dive on 3rd and 1 to either get the first down or to set up 4th and inches.
Canada's #1 Packer Fan
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 13
4 words: WOW - what a mess
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Bradford went 10-10 with 3 TDs against the Packers first team D in last year's preseason. That would have been a confidence builder.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Generally I'm fine with going for it on fourth down more often but in this situation with the Packers trailing by 3 at the end of the third quarter and points at a premium it was a terrible decision.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
McCarthy made the right call. Steelers do this all the time and it's one of the reasons that Tomlin is a great coach. Saying that McCarthy should have kicked the field is either A) playing the results or B) playing to lose by as little as possible. Not going for it in that situation is not playing to win.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
MM deserves far more criticism for not working on his offensive game plan rather than going for it on one play. Over a year now since the Packer's offense looked respectable. Last season he had a scapegoats in Nelson and Clements, this year the blame needs to fall squarely on his and Rodgers' shoulders. This team has too much talent to be THIS bad on offense.
The comparison isn't fair because Belichick is in a league of his own when it comes to coaching but somehow the Pats, with Gronk out and a backup QB, are fielding a better offense than the Packers. McCarthy is known as an offensive coach and the gulf between he and Belichick should not be that large. Even Tomlin, minus a starting RB, TE and a starting WR is fielding a far better offense than the Packers.
The comparison isn't fair because Belichick is in a league of his own when it comes to coaching but somehow the Pats, with Gronk out and a backup QB, are fielding a better offense than the Packers. McCarthy is known as an offensive coach and the gulf between he and Belichick should not be that large. Even Tomlin, minus a starting RB, TE and a starting WR is fielding a far better offense than the Packers.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Well, yesterday going for it resulted in the Packers losing the game.
I had more issue throwing a fade route, which seemed to me, more about getting Jordy back in the offense than it was a tried and true play with a high probability of success at that point and then running on the next one.
To me, neither played off the other or set anything up in anyway. Just seemed to like 2 random plays. Anyway. Points would have been nice, which I thought they'd go for, but i'm not extremely upset they didn't either.
To me, neither played off the other or set anything up in anyway. Just seemed to like 2 random plays. Anyway. Points would have been nice, which I thought they'd go for, but i'm not extremely upset they didn't either.
Carl
Cheesehead
Rodgers audibled to that play. It looked like he wanted to take advantage of a one one one matchup between Jordy and rookie who was on him.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
And that's the definition of playing the result. If only coaches could know the future.
