official studs and duds week 2 @ minnesota

[Deleted member 6794]

And that's the definition of playing the result. If only coaches could know the future.

I wouldn't have agreed with the call if the play resulted in a first down though.

 

[sschind]

If you believe I was being serious then I have bridge to sell you. Cheap.

Its a big fancy bridge with a cart path and everything. I saw it. Its a good deal. If I didn't already have one I'd buy it.

Seriously though, its like they carried him through there on purpose knowing the network would show it a zillion times thus showcasing more of the fancy new digs.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I wouldn't have agreed with the call if the play resulted in a first down though.

This is a discussion that never goes anywhere, can we at least agree that the offense is awful and the coaching staff should probably look at some scheme changes? I mean, I know Rodgers is playing poorly but I can't figure out how Belichick can field an offense against the Cardinals that looks pretty good while missing the most dominant offensive player in the NFL (Gronk) and Brady while the Packers, who are basically at full strength minus 10-20% of Jordy's full strength, can't manage 60 yards passing in a half against the Vikings.

 

[sschind]

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.

I get why he did it it just seemed too rushed to me. "Ooh there's a rookie out there lets just chuck it up to Jordy."
I'm trying to forget as much as I can of this game so this may be one play that has gone into my recycle bin but if I do recall correctly it looked like a really lousy play. Either Rodgers overthrew or the rookie did a much better job of not letting Jordy get by him than the brain trust figured he would. Maybe AR was remembering what happened when Barclay came in for that one play and figured it would be a sure TD.

I wouldn't have agreed with the call if the play resulted in a first down though.

You may be the only one then WIMM. Myself, I would have gone for the tie. Like you said earlier (I think it was you) at this point in the game we knew points would be at a premium and in that case you take the 3. Still, I don't really have a problem with the decision to go for it I just wasn't impressed with the particular play that was called. You know he won't admit it but you have to wonder if MM decided to go for it to prove he isn't a conservative coach.

 

[RepStar15]

Duds: Mike McCarthey, Tom Clemonts, Aaron Rodgers, Demarious Randall, Morgan Burnette, hell the entire secondary was not present

Studs: Jake Ryan, Nick Perry, Joe Thomas, Randall Cobb, Run Defense

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is a discussion that never goes anywhere, can we at least agree that the offense is awful and the coaching staff should probably look at some scheme changes?

There's no denying the offense is struggling mightily and something has to change in a hurry.

You know he won't admit it but you have to wonder if MM decided to go for it to prove he isn't a conservative coach.

I was wondering about that as well.

 

[4zone]

Next time some coach or player says playing in the pre-season is over rated they should be cut or fired on the spot. The regular season is not the place to start working on cohesion or timing. It's the time to earn home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There was a lot to like in how the team played, particularly in the defense front 7, but in the end the quarterback suffered from what I believe to be extraterrestrial possession or predation. Whether that has come in the form of an alien succubus or some other entity would be a matter of speculation. Further, I'm uncertain whether exorcism could work against alien possession as opposed to inhabitation by a supernatural entity.

There's only one other plausible answer for the under throws and other misfires: It was just one of those bad days that have occurred in the past a couple of times per season.

 

[Royal Pain]

Next time some coach or player says playing in the pre-season is over rated they should be cut or fired on the spot. The regular season is not the place to start working on cohesion or timing. It's the time to earn home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

You know I considered that as an explanation as well, but then I remembered that we were beaten by a quarterback that has been on the team for less than 2 weeks. This was a winnable game, but I think Rodgers 2 turnovers turned out to be the difference.

 

[Einstein McFly]

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.

I agree that a lot of people do this, but in this situation, on the road in a tight game where your defense is playing well, TAKE THE POINTS. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I said this before they ran the play. I assumed that they were just going to try to draw them off and when they snapped the ball I said "What are you DOING?!" Even if it had worked, it was a bad idea.

As for the vikes, it depends what they think they can do and how they feel about the game. I wasn't paying that close attention to their view, honestly. From our view thought, not taking the points was a bad move, make it or not.

 

[Sky King]

A positive trait a person possesses can also have a related side effect. In the case of McCarthy it could be that his good trait of persistence has the side effect that he can also be too stubborn at times. Going back deep into last season it seems as though just about every opponent has had this team's offensive tendencies pegged quite well. What used to work extremely well no longer seems to. Yet, McCarthy stubbornly clings to an apparently stale and predictable offense. And even when a much needed running game is showing true signs of life he quickly abandons it to go with his first love, the passing game. He is loyal.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

Studs:
Run defense - Front seven was outstanding again
Joe Thomas - Looking like he is a real player
Mike Daniels - was unblockable
Nick Perry - consistent pressure

Duds:
Mike McCarthy - play calling sucks. 4th down decision was stupid, take the points. Play that was called was just horrible. If you want to go for it bring in your FB and Lacy and go under center.
Rodgers - 14 straight games under 100 rating? WTF is going on?
Secondary unit - cant cover anyone
Barclay - 1 play and he gives up a sack. Why is he on the team?
Punter - Nice move here Ted. This guy stinks. Can't punt in a dome? Can't wait till its 10 degrees in GB.

I didn't expect them to go 16-0 but after 2 games I am very disappointed in the offense & secondary. Hope they can get things straightened out soon.

 

[RRyder]

To the people calling the entire secondary a dud we must've watched different games. It was one guy. Randal. Yes he was that bad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There may have been a couple of instances of Perry and Peppers outside and Matthews blitzing inside, but I noticed only one and it resulted in a sack. This should be a staple on obvious passing downs even if Matthews drops on occasion to keep the opponent off balance.

 

[King of Jeans]

To the people calling the entire secondary a dud we must've watched different games. It was one guy. Randal. Yes he was that bad.

This. Randall was really bad, hopefully it was just an off night for him. Burnett was pretty bad too though.

 

[Sky King]

Much of the optimistic talk regarding the Cook acquistion was that he had never played for a QB like Rodgers before. Unfortunately, it's looking as though he has.

 

[Carl]

I agree that a lot of people do this, but in this situation, on the road in a tight game where your defense is playing well, TAKE THE POINTS. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I said this before they ran the play. I assumed that they were just going to try to draw them off and when they snapped the ball I said "What are you DOING?!" Even if it had worked, it was a bad idea.

As for the vikes, it depends what they think they can do and how they feel about the game. I wasn't paying that close attention to their view, honestly. From our view thought, not taking the points was a bad move, make it or not.

I have a hard time believing you, or any poster, would disagree with the fourth down decision had it worked.

 

[RRyder]

I have a hard time believing you, or any poster, would disagree with the fourth down decision had it worked.

I've been a poster that has said that just because a stupid decision ends up working doesn't mean it was the right call.

I was yelling at the screen to kick the FG. If the offense had been on fire sure you can go for it. But on a day where it's struggling you have to tie up the game late when you have the chance

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This. Randall was really bad, hopefully it was just an off night for him. Burnett was pretty bad too though.

Burnett didn't play great for sure but nowhere near as bad as Randall.

 

[Mavster]

I was fine with going for it there but I would've liked to see Rodgers under center with Lacy and Rip behind him vs being in shotgun with Starks.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

I was not fine with them going for it. Take the points. But that would have made a lot more sense than the play they ran!

 

[PFanCan]

To the people calling the entire secondary a dud we must've watched different games. It was one guy. Randal. Yes he was that bad.

Yet, the coaches did nothing that I saw to change the situation. Randall, who was having perhaps his worst game ever, was still covering the opposing team's hottest WR alone at the end of the game.

I agree with the earlier poster who commented on how it seemed that when the Viking receivers were catching the ball, there were not any Packer defenders even in the width/height of the visible camera image. Ok, maybe the OP of this comment exaggerated with the "...for several seconds" comment, but the essence of his point is valid. I noted this as well during the game. Where are our defenders?!

I do not believe that other team receivers are THAT much better than ours, in that they are able to obtain 10-15 feet of separate on simple slant routes where our receivers seem to have someone running with most of the time.

I don't know the numbers, but I think that Rodgers had (on average) more time than Bradford in the pocket. But, Bradford had far less problem in finding those open targets. To me, this looks like scheme, not the players...

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Studs: D-Line - Especially against the run.
Duds: Hate to say it, but ARod. I don't know if he just starts slow or isn't feeling it at the start of the season, but he really needs to turn it on. Missed some back shoulder throws, missing high, low, etc.

He refused to play enough in pre-season. 1 series does not make you ready for the regular season. I don't know why he thinks he can do this...oh wait yes I do...Thompson allows it and Packer fans kiss the ring.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

Yet, the coaches did nothing that I saw to change the situation. Randall, who was having perhaps his worst game ever, was still covering the opposing team's hottest WR alone at the end of the game.

I agree with the earlier poster who commented on how it seemed that when the Viking receivers were catching the ball, there were not any Packer defenders even in the width/height of the visible camera image. Ok, maybe the OP of this comment exaggerated with the "...for several seconds" comment, but the essence of his point is valid. I noted this as well during the game. Where are our defenders?!

I do not believe that other team receivers are THAT much better than ours, in that they are able to obtain 10-15 feet of separate on simple slant routes where our receivers seem to have someone running with most of the time.

I don't know the numbers, but I think that Rodgers had (on average) more time than Bradford in the pocket. But, Bradford had far less problem in finding those open targets. To me, this looks like scheme, not the players...

This!

Seems to me the scheme has been the same for the last 5 years. Teams have caught on to this scheme. Time to adapt!

 

[Carl]

The scheme would have looked fine last night without missed throws, a pick, fumble, Cook giving away a first down, and missed 4th down conversion.

The offense actually moved the ball well the second half, but mistakes killed them.

Mistakes were a much bigger issue than the scheme.