official studs and duds week 2 @ minnesota

[bigbubbatd]

If this was the only game in which the Packers' offense looked inept, then it would be easier to overlook the issues. However, the Vikings game was simply a continuation of the same issues that have plagued this team for over a year. You might say the second half was good offense but I could also point out that there were a few drives that were helped by Waynes pulling and grabbing receivers that he was actually covering pretty well; had he just looked for the ball then some of those drives might have ended a little more quickly. Hard to count on the other team having a corner self-destruct (to be fair though, it worked for the Vikings last week).

Waynes had 3 penalties. 1 defensive holding and 2 pass interference. Only one of the pass interference was a big one. The other happened on 1st and 10. Waynes' penalties were not the reason the Packers moved down the field. If you look at the play by play you will see things like shorter passes, using the tight end, running the ball etc. Waynes was brutal but the Packers offense actually moved well including being something like 6 for 8 on 3rd down

 

[Raptorman]

Waynes had 3 penalties. 1 defensive holding and 2 pass interference. Only one of the pass interference was a big one. The other happened on 1st and 10. Waynes' penalties were not the reason the Packers moved down the field. If you look at the play by play you will see things like shorter passes, using the tight end, running the ball etc. Waynes was brutal but the Packers offense actually moved well including being something like 6 for 8 on 3rd down

25% of the Packers 1st downs were due to penalties. In the first half, 4 of 5 were from penalties. And the 5th would have been if Rodgers hadn't completed a 21 yard pass.

 

[bigbubbatd]

25% of the Packers 1st downs were due to penalties. In the first half, 4 of 5 were from penalties. And the 5th would have been if Rodgers hadn't completed a 21 yard pass.

I was talking about the second half in my posts.

The Vikings defense dominated the Packers offense in the first half.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The problem the second half was Rodgers making an awful throw, McCarthy making a poor decision, and Rodgers not protecting the ball in the pocket. Against a good defense they moved the ball very well before self-destructing. They just were awful at executing in Viking territory.

Unfortunately the Packers offense only scored seven points in the second half because of it. While the unit moved the ball more effectively they came up nearly empty in the most inpirtant area.

So the "realistic scenario" is this: After not moving the ball the entire first half (56 total yards prior to the drive), McCarthy decided to save his final timeout under the assumption that the Packers would be able to drive roughly 45 yards in 21 seconds, stop the clock and kick a field goal? All that unused timeout did was get Rodgers, the most important person of the franchise, creamed by a defensive lineman.

The Packers tried a long pass to get in field goal range at the end of the first half. If Rodgers had completed the pass the timeout would have been vital.

If you really want to complain about the usage of timeouts during the first half you should do so about having to call two timeouts because of not getting a play off in time.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The Packers tried a long pass to get in field goal range at the end of the first half. If Rodgers had completed the pass the timeout would have been vital.

If you really want to complain about the usage of timeouts during the first half you should do so about having to call two timeouts because of not getting a play off in time.

My entire point is that the Packers had a better chance of icing the kicker and taking 3 points off of the board than driving 45+ yards in 21 seconds and kicking the field goal. The offense had 56 yards up to that point. The receivers weren't getting separation. The odds were not in the Packers' favor.

I also wouldn't say what I'm doing is "complaining". It is my belief that time-outs weren't used correctly by the Packers in the first half.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My entire point is that the Packers had a better chance of icing the kicker and taking 3 points off of the board than driving 45+ yards in 21 seconds and kicking the field goal. The offense had 56 yards up to that point. The receivers weren't getting separation. The odds were not in the Packers' favor.

The odds aren't in favor of a team icing the kicker either.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The odds aren't in favor of a team icing the kicker either.

Which play has the higher odds?

I knew a guy who told me that he had two dominate shooting eyes. I feel like we're in this kind of a discussion right now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which play has the higher odds?

Here's a link to an in-depth analysis of icing a kicker that proves it doesn't work.

http://grantland.com/features/icing-kicker-work/

While the odds of the Packers getting in field goal range were small it was the right call to hold on to the team's final timeout.

 

[Mondio]

I never liked the timeout right before the kick, unless it's a kick with time expiring. If there's 10 seconds left, I'm keeping my timeout.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Here's a link to an in-depth analysis of icing a kicker that proves it doesn't work.

http://grantland.com/features/icing-kicker-work/

While the odds of the Packers getting in field goal range were small it was the right call to hold on to the team's final timeout.

I've read this article in the past and many like it.

I respectfully disagree with you.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Unfortunately the Packers offense only scored seven points in the second half because of it. While the unit moved the ball more effectively they came up nearly empty in the most inpirtant area.

Oh I completely agree. Points are what matter. I was just pointing out the second half offense did some really good things and likely score 13 or more points if Rodgers doesn't throw a terrible pass and protects the ball in the pocket and McCarthy just takes the field goal. Against a good defense on the road a 13 point half is solid. They had long drives, which third down conversions, te were involved, it wasn't only bc of deep throws, and those are the positives I know what to see over the course of a whole game and without the turnovers and poor coaching decision(s)

 

[Packerlifer]

X's and O's With LeRoy Butler: http://www.packersnews.com/videos/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/21/90784780/



A picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...onse-to-this-nonsensical-claim-that-no-one-is

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.packers.com/media-center...ackfield/e39b952c-8f5c-487c-8c92-a1bd08b12835

 

[bigbubbatd]

A picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...onse-to-this-nonsensical-claim-that-no-one-is

While a couple of those are kind of ridiculous bc Rodgers is looking the other way when the wr got some separation overall they show guys open. Rodgers needs to get better working through progressions right now and taking what the defense gives him. He had a really bad game and the team almost won so I guess there is that. A few years ago a Rodgers performance like that would have lead to a blowout loss.

I will continue to say the second half the offense did a lot of those things until the self-destructed. They picked up 3rd downs and a very high rate, they hit wrs and TE's more quickly.

 

[sschind]

X's and O's With LeRoy Butler: http://www.packersnews.com/videos/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/21/90784780/



A picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...onse-to-this-nonsensical-claim-that-no-one-is

Interesting for sure but you do have to be a little careful when viewing stills. For one thing we don't know whatt eh progression might be. The open guy might be the third guy Rodgers looks for and by that time its too late or the pressure is too

While a couple of those are kind of ridiculous bc Rodgers is looking the other way when the wr got some separation overall they show guys open. Rodgers needs to get better working through progressions right now and taking what the defense gives him. He had a really bad game and the team almost won so I guess there is that. A few years ago a Rodgers performance like that would have lead to a blowout loss.

I will continue to say the second half the offense did a lot of those things until the self-destructed. They picked up 3rd downs and a very high rate, they hit wrs and TE's more quickly.

I agree, sometimes it is hard to tell by stills. What happened in the second before and after make a difference. Maybe the WRs are open because Rodgers already made up his mind to go elsewhere for whatever reason and the D is reacting to that. Its not like a player can stop instantaneously and decide to go in a different direction.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you have ever watched a football game from up high, you will notice that on almost every passing play there is going to be a receiver that "looks open" at some point during the play, these picture prove that point. What you don't see is the "window view" that a QB has on the field behind 8 or so big bodies. So yes, guys are getting open on any given play, but as some have said, at what moment are they open in Rodgers progression through the play and his view of the field? This is why WR's run specific routes and AR has to make a split second decision if he thinks a WR is going to be open when the route is completed and the ball arrives, basing a lot of this also on his pre snap reads of the defense. If in fact he isn't finding guys open during his progression, which seems to be the case a lot of the time, things need to change. Either WR's need to run better routes(we find WR's that can), Luke Getsy and MM need to get more creative with the routes or AR needs to take more chances and trust his WR's and just throw the ball. What I don't like that I saw a few times on Sunday night, was AR seeming to chose a low percentage big play over what appeared to be a high percentage completion for a smaller gain. That situation was in a few of the pictures. The 3rd down toss to Jordy in the endzone right before the 4th down failure sticks out in my head. I pointed this out the other day, Cook was wide open for a first down, in the same general site line as Jordy. But it seemed to me that Rodgers was going for Jordy no matter what, viewing this as a "free play" because of the down and distance. Seeing all the other guys who were wide open on the play makes it even worse.

Has AR just taken on the mental state of having to do it all and feeling like he always needs to make a big play and no mistakes? Sometimes I get that feeling that he has lost his edge of confidence and patience and feels like "oh boy, I need to do something awesome on this play". Finally, others have mentioned it, is he getting happy feet too quickly when he doesn't need to? Seems like there are times when he immediately goes to scramble mode when he doesn't need to and ends up throwing off balance as a result. Im wondering if Alex Van Pelt has just decided that AR is so good he doesn't need a lot of coaching or is Alex in a room somewhere today viewing film of AR from 2 years ago and comparing it to the AR today?

 

[Carl]

While a couple of those are kind of ridiculous bc Rodgers is looking the other way when the wr got some separation overall they show guys open. Rodgers needs to get better working through progressions right now and taking what the defense gives him. He had a really bad game and the team almost won so I guess there is that. A few years ago a Rodgers performance like that would have lead to a blowout loss.

I will continue to say the second half the offense did a lot of those things until the self-destructed. They picked up 3rd downs and a very high rate, they hit wrs and TE's more quickly.

On a few drives, they moved the ball well enough that they didn't even have many 3rd downs to convert.

 

[bigbubbatd]

On a few drives, they moved the ball well enough that they didn't even have many 3rd downs to convert.

And when they needed to the did all but 2 or 3 times. They were stopped by turnovers more than having to punt. Of 5 drives in the second half they ended as 1 punt, 2 turnovers in Viking territory, a turnover on downs in the red zone, and a td.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Interesting for sure but you do have to be a little careful when viewing stills. For one thing we don't know whatt eh progression might be. The open guy might be the third guy Rodgers looks for and by that time its too late or the pressure is too.

While there's some truth to being careful with photos most of them prove Rodgers ignored open receivers on several plays vs. the Vikings.

 

[sschind]

While there's some truth to being careful with photos most of them prove Rodgers ignored open receivers on several plays vs. the Vikings.

While I tend to agree I would still say all they really proved was that there were WRs open on several plays vs. the vikings. Whether he ignored them or simply didn't see them or they came open at a time where it just wasn't possible for him to throw to them is up in the air for many of them. It is possible, and even probable that he ignored one or two but why did he ignore them. One that sticks out is the pass to Jordy in the end zone. That play was decided as soon as Aaron saw Jordy lined up against the rookie. Its a play that he thought he could exploit the defender and its a play that has to be a quick throw if its going to work. There simply was no time to look at other receivers in that case no matter how open they may have been.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I tend to agree I would still say all they really proved was that there were WRs open on several plays vs. the vikings. Whether he ignored them or simply didn't see them or they came open at a time where it just wasn't possible for him to throw to them is up in the air for many of them. It is possible, and even probable that he ignored one or two but why did he ignore them. One that sticks out is the pass to Jordy in the end zone. That play was decided as soon as Aaron saw Jordy lined up against the rookie. Its a play that he thought he could exploit the defender and its a play that has to be a quick throw if its going to work. There simply was no time to look at other receivers in that case no matter how open they may have been.

The one errant throw by Rodgers that stood out to me (aside of the interception of course) happened on the Packers’ first offensive drive of the game.

Here's Baranczyk's take on the play:

Rodgers combined a bad decision with an inaccurate throw on a play that also raises a question about the Packers’ post-snap adjustments.

The book on Rodgers always has been don’t blitz or he’ll make you pay, but here the Vikings did and nearly intercepted him. The Packers had three receivers at the top of the formation and Jordy Nelson alone at the bottom. Vikings safety Harrison Smith crept up to the line on Nelson’s side and blitzed off the edge. Normally, Nelson would have been a hot read because the blitz created a hole in the defense on his side. He’d run a quick slant for a fairly simple pitch and catch, and if he could break that first tackle he’d have a shot at a big play.

But Nelson didn’t run a slant and Rodgers never looked at him. Instead, Rodgers threw quickly to tight end Jared Cook on the other side. Luckily for the Packers the throw was a little behind Cook, because if it had been on target it would have hit linebacker Eric Kendricks in the chest. Instead, Kendricks reached out one hand and easily batted down the ball for an incompletion.

On the third-and-2 play Rodgers targeted Nelson in the end zone against Alexander he would have had Cobb wide open on a quick slant for a first down but never looked his way. It's true the quarterback didn't have any time to go through his progressions on that play but should have decided before the snap throwing to Cobb would have bern the better choice.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/23/mike-daniels-fined-for-hit-on-sam-bradford/

 

[sschind]

T

On the third-and-2 play Rodgers targeted Nelson in the end zone against Alexander he would have had Cobb wide open on a quick slant for a first down but never looked his way. It's true the quarterback didn't have any time to go through his progressions on that play but should have decided before the snap throwing to Cobb would have bern the better choice.

Its easy to say what should have been done after you see the results. Rodgers saw Nelson 1 on 1 against the rookie and thought he could beat him and made up his mind to go that way. Whether Cobb eventually was open or not is essentially irrelevant to this play because it was not an option once Rodgers made up his mind to go to Nelson. I'm not sure how you can say going to Cobb should have been the better choice not knowing the outcome of the play.

Overall I think far to much emphasis is placed on single plays and their outcomes, especially when they fail. People make a general statement "Rodgers holds the ball too long" and they point to one play and say "see that proves it" I'm talking in general now, not the article which posted what 12 plays in which Rodgers performed below standard. I think it was Dodd in another thread who said people look at the execution of one play and act a if were happening all the time which isn't always the case. In order to see that a player is not playing up to his standards you have to look at his entire body of work over that period of time an not 1 single play because even the greatest screwed up every now an then. If you look at his entire body of work since the Denver game last season I think its clear that Rodgers has some issues and all these plays are part of it but no single play is proof by itself.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you look at his entire body of work since the Denver game last season I think its clear that Rodgers has some issues and all these plays are part of it but no single play is proof by itself.

I get what you are saying, but if you don't start breaking down each and every play, how do you determine the problem(s) and then go about fixing what you find? Any one of those plays 3 years ago would have just been left on the film room floor and chalked up to "lets not repeat this", but when that film starts piling up its time to take a closer look and find the cause.

I'm starting to think that last year when the offense started sputtering, most of the focus/blame was put on the loss of Jordy, the play calling and the receiving corp. and few looked at AR as possibly part of the issue. Why would anyone, he is a FHOF QB? He may not of been any part of the problem at the time, but all of a sudden he has the weight of the team on his back, the media and fans breathing down his neck to right the ship. He starts pressing, trying to do too much, frustration starts to set in and he changes some of the things he used to do right and its a slow progression backwards.

I said it in another post, I really hope Alex Van Pelt and AR are sitting down and looking at old and recent game film and seeing if anything AR is doing now has changed. Even the best athletes can go through slumps and its just a matter of recognizing what has changed to be able to fix it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Its easy to say what should have been done after you see the results. Rodgers saw Nelson 1 on 1 against the rookie and thought he could beat him and made up his mind to go that way. Whether Cobb eventually was open or not is essentially irrelevant to this play because it was not an option once Rodgers made up his mind to go to Nelson. I'm not sure how you can say going to Cobb should have been the better choice not knowing the outcome of the play.

It was obvious before the snap that targeting Cobb on that play was the better option as the defensive back covering him was playing a few yards off making it an easy throw for a first down on a quick slant. Rodgers deciding to throw to Nelson was based on the erroneous assumption a rookie cornerback not being able to cover the Packers #1 receiver but not on a good pre-snap read.

Overall I think far to much emphasis is placed on single plays and their outcomes, especially when they fail. People make a general statement "Rodgers holds the ball too long" and they point to one play and say "see that proves it" I'm talking in general now, not the article which posted what 12 plays in which Rodgers performed below standard. I think it was Dodd in another thread who said people look at the execution of one play and act a if were happening all the time which isn't always the case. In order to see that a player is not playing up to his standards you have to look at his entire body of work over that period of time an not 1 single play because even the greatest screwed up every now an then. If you look at his entire body of work since the Denver game last season I think its clear that Rodgers has some issues and all these plays are part of it but no single play is proof by itself.

I agree that picking a single play to prove a point doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately Rodgers has made numerous bad decisions over the last 14 games contributing to the Packers' passing game struggling mightily.