Studs and duds bear game

[PikeBadger]

Totally agree. Starting at the 25 is a victory for our kick return team. We have had terrible blocking on both return units this year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So what would your brilliant offensive mind have called last night? Out of RBs and the deep ball isn't there. Short to mid range passes seemed to move the ball down the field.

I would call that game a decent start towards some innovation but a far cry from a good offense. Rather than bemoan the lack of the deep ball, perhaps you should ask WHY the deep ball isn't there. Or you could just give up and say, "the defense didn't want us to be a good offense so let's give up".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would call that game a decent start towards some innovation but a far cry from a good offense. Rather than bemoan the lack of the deep ball, perhaps you should ask WHY the deep ball isn't there. Or you could just give up and say, "the defense didn't want us to be a good offense so let's give up".

The deep ball isn't there because teams line up with two high safeties against the Packers resulting in the team's receivers having trouble separating from defensive backs. It seems that McCarthy and Rodgers have finally realized it's not possible to force deep throws against that defensive look, settling for short, high percentage completions. At some point that will lead to opponents bringing a safety closer to the LOS opening up intermediate to deep routes for the Packers offense.

 

[Pkrjones]

It seems that McCarthy and Rodgers have finally realized it's not possible to force deep throws against that defensive look, settling for short, high percentage completions.

I hope they both really do realize that short/intermediate throws ARE there and take advantage of them. Absolutely nothing wrong with 7-9 minute drives, taking the 5-7 yd. plays that are given. Kill time, move the chains but NEED to put it into the end zone at the end. MM's gotta find some short yardage plays that will work for 1 yd. TD's.

 

[Vladimirr]

Studs: The Pack
Duds: Da Bears

My wife and I went to our first game at Lambeau. Section 111 Row 6, was an awesome experience. Felt like we were right on the field.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The deep ball isn't there because teams line up with two high safeties against the Packers resulting in the team's receivers having trouble separating from defensive backs. It seems that McCarthy and Rodgers have finally realized it's not possible to force deep throws against that defensive look, settling for short, high percentage completions. At some point that will lead to opponents bringing a safety closer to the LOS opening up intermediate to deep routes for the Packers offense.

I don't disagree with making the correct throw but it appears like people believe a passing offense that averages less than six yards per attempt can be good. It can't. This offense needs to find a way to be able to throw the deep ball. The answer to that isn't to just NOT throw deep.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Depends on what you consider an elite offense. Personally, I'd rather have an offense that can control the clock and move the chains than one that lives and dies by the deep ball.

And not taking what the defense gives you is just plain dumb. For the first time in a year, I saw receivers getting open underneath because safeties were playing over the top. Same recipe that got Cobb all those touches before Jordy's injury.

But if you think we should look off open receivers and chuck the ball into deep coverage, well I'm glad you're not calling the offense.

I love the straw man argument. I say an offense that averages less than six yards per attempt is a bad offense. You say that you don't want an offense that lives and dies by the deep ball, because of course there's no other options...i will simply direct you to the Saints as a team that has an offense that doesn't just roll over and give what the defense allows, the Saints actually force the defense to adjust. I'm honestly a little surprised that so many are happy that the Packers offense has become one of those offenses that can't dictate to the defense, I mean, it's not like the Packers lost a ton of offensive weapons from two years ago.

 

[Uncle Rico]

I love the straw man argument. I say an offense that averages less than six yards per attempt is a bad offense. You say that you don't want an offense that lives and dies by the deep ball, because of course there's no other options...i will simply direct you to the Saints as a team that has an offense that doesn't just roll over and give what the defense allows, the Saints actually force the defense to adjust. I'm honestly a little surprised that so many are happy that the Packers offense has become one of those offenses that can't dictate to the defense, I mean, it's not like the Packers lost a ton of offensive weapons from two years ago.

This will be my last comment on this subject since it's pretty clear we're just going around in circles. As much as I would enjoy watching it, the Packers haven't shown thus far this season that they can impose their will on anybody. Even if we were 100% healthy, I'm not sure we have the play makers on offense to line up and have success doing whatever we want. It would be foolish to not control the clock and move the chains when the defense is allowing us to throw for 5 - 10 yds a shot.

And as for your Saints example. "they actually force the defense to adjust". Yes they do, but when the defense adjusts so does the offense. The defense takes one thing away, it opens something else up. That's how the game is played. The Saints do not attack strengths in the defense just to make a point.

The reason we can't see eye to eye on this is because we have different views on what makes an offense successful. You want 6+ yds per attempt. I want clock control, first downs, and to win the TOP battle. Realistically, if the Packers do either of those things, they will probably be in a pretty good position to win the ball game.

I get that the offense we ran on Thursday wasn't what you wanted to see. But you can't say it was unsuccessful. Hell, if I had my way, we'd line up in the I and run for 300+ a game. We just aren't equipped to do that. So until that day comes, I'm perfectly fine with "rolling over and taking what the defense allows".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't disagree with making the correct throw but it appears like people believe a passing offense that averages less than six yards per attempt can be good. It can't. This offense needs to find a way to be able to throw the deep ball. The answer to that isn't to just NOT throw deep.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to completely abandon the deep throw but there's no reason to force it on every single play.

 

[easyk83]

I don't think anyone is suggesting to completely abandon the deep throw but there's no reason to force it on every single play.

I'm not sure how anyone could conclude that the balance of posters in this thread want this offense to throw checkdowns and short passes every pass. Why not run something like the 2007 offense that mixed in **** and dunk with intermediate passes and the occasional long ball. With Aaron teams have been leaving the underneath stuff wide open because they know he wont throw there.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think anyone is suggesting to completely abandon the deep throw but there's no reason to force it on every single play.

Yet when I point out that the lack of any deep throws at all is a problem, some read that as me suggesting we need to do nothing but throw into double coverage. Some refuse to understand that a passing with NO deep threat is a bad passing game. Fans have mocked Alex Smith for years for doing exactly what the Packers are doing, yet when the Packers do it it's apparently a good offense? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yet when I point out that the lack of any deep throws at all is a problem, some read that as me suggesting we need to do nothing but throw into double coverage. Some refuse to understand that a passing with NO deep threat is a bad passing game. Fans have mocked Alex Smith for years for doing exactly what the Packers are doing, yet when the Packers do it it's apparently a good offense? That doesn't make any sense.

Rodgers early this season was looking for the big play on nearly every single passing attempt though. There's no doubt the Packers have to complete intermediate to deep throws as well to field a successful offense in the long haul but moving the chains with short passes is a decent approach against defenses playing with two high safeties.

 

[swhitset]

Rodgers early this season was looking for the big play on nearly every single passing attempt though. There's no doubt the Packers have to complete intermediate to deep throws as well to field a successful offense in the long haul but moving the chains with short passes is a decent approach against defenses playing with two high safeties.

And doing that consistently hopefully makes the defense adjust away from that 2 high safety look... opening up some down the field throws.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Rodgers early this season was looking for the big play on nearly every single passing attempt though. There's no doubt the Packers have to complete intermediate to deep throws as well to field a successful offense in the long haul but moving the chains with short passes is a decent approach against defenses playing with two high safeties.

Here's one of my issue with this argument. The Saints. I don't think there's a single player on that offense that the packers would swap out for their counterpart. The Packer's receivers are generally considered to be better, the QB is considered to be better, I guess an argument could be made about the RB now but I'm fairly certain that most would take a healthy Lacy (and let's not forget, a healthy Lacy was around when this offense was still bad) and while Fleener has name recognition I'm not entirely certain what he's ever done to deserve it and the Packers have a MUCH better oline. Now, given all of that, how is it that the Saints don't seem to have the issues with two high safeties that the Packers have? It's the ability of the Saints coaching staff to use plays to open things up for players even when defenses use two deep safeties. It's not like two deep safeties is something new in the NFL. Yet it seems to be an excuse for so many fans for the Packers to field a bad offense.

It comes down to this, why is the two deep safety defense such an offense killer for the Packers yet not nearly as apocalyptic for teams like the Saints, Chargers, Dolphins, Bengals and Redskins; teams that all rank in the top-10 in yards per pass attempt and teams that all would appear to be worse at nearly every position on offense than the Packers? Why can't the coaching staff adjust to beat that defense? The "we don't have a TE" excuse is just ridiculous; what TE among the teams I listed above is really that great aside from Reed who misses half the season (and by great I mean is actually really good, not just that people recognize the name).

 

[mradtke66]

It comes down to this, why is the two deep safety defense such an offense killer for the Packers yet not nearly as apocalyptic for teams like the Saints, Chargers, Dolphins, Bengals and Redskins;

While not having watched these teams a lot, the answer is likely that opposing defenses don't run as much man-2 coverages. Why don't they? They more than likely have an effective counter punch to man-2. Most typically, that's short completions under coverage, a viable receiving threat out of the backfield, and/or a tight end to stress the seam.

Or defenses are worried about the running game (Chargers w/ Gordon) and bring down a safety into the box, leaving you with cover-1 or cover-3 as the easy coverages by default. And then you follow that up with play action.

You run those other concepts to force the defense out of man-2. When they get out of cover-2/man-2, you take your shots downfield.

The "we don't have a TE" excuse is just ridiculous; what TE among the teams I listed above is really that great aside from Reed who misses half the season (and by great I mean is actually really good, not just that people recognize the name).

You don't need a great TE, not even necessarily a good one. Just good enough that most linebackers will lose in coverage. Even then, you can probably get creative to get the occasional good coverage linebacker lined up on that receiving back via motions or other tricks.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While not having watched these teams a lot, the answer is likely that opposing defenses don't run as much man-2 coverages. Why don't they? They more than likely have an effective counter punch to man-2. Most typically, that's short completions under coverage, a viable receiving threat out of the backfield, and/or a tight end to stress the seam.

Or defenses are worried about the running game (Chargers w/ Gordon) and bring down a safety into the box, leaving you with cover-1 or cover-3 as the easy coverages by default. And then you follow that up with play action.

You run those other concepts to force the defense out of man-2. When they get out of cover-2/man-2, you take your shots downfield.



You don't need a great TE, not even necessarily a good one. Just good enough that most linebackers will lose in coverage. Even then, you can probably get creative to get the occasional good coverage linebacker lined up on that receiving back via motions or other tricks.

OK, so then why are the Packers the team that doesn't run short passes that help the receivers get open? I'm still not hearing why the Packers are fundamentally incapable of beating a 2 deep safety look.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OK, so then why are the Packers the team that doesn't run short passes that help the receivers get open? I'm still not hearing why the Packers are fundamentally incapable of beating a 2 deep safety look.

There were a lot of open receivers on short routes during the second half of both games vs. the Cowboys and Bears.

 

[Mondio]

OK, so then why are the Packers the team that doesn't run short passes that help the receivers get open? I'm still not hearing why the Packers are fundamentally incapable of beating a 2 deep safety look.

Because just like every other great in NFL history, people aren't without faults. It seems what makes them great, also makes them vulnerable. Look at Favre, could fit a ball anywhere at anytime from anywhere on the field and he did it often. It also meant he threw a lot of balls that shouldn't have been thrown. If he didn't keep that in check he never would have been great, and he had moments where he wasn't great. It's the same for Rodgers.

He's probably smarter than anyone we've had play QB. I think he knows this game inside and out and he loves the big play. It makes him great, he's hit on so many big plays because he's looking for them. But things have changed, and he has to learn to take some of the other stuff too. I mean before we had so many receivers that it wasn't a big deal to turn every 3rd play into a big one. But it's not that way and we need to move the chains before we can hit the big ones. He'll still be great. He didn't forget football, he didn't get too old to play, he can still throw better than most.

As long as he's able to adapt his style of play, we'll be fine. Plenty of short passes have been run, but he's been passing them over for bigger plays down field. If he continues to do that, we won't ever beat that defense, but I think he will start moving the chains with this offense and take his shots in a more measured approach rather than look for it on every play.

 

[mradtke66]

OK, so then why are the Packers the team that doesn't run short passes that help the receivers get open? I'm still not hearing why the Packers are fundamentally incapable of beating a 2 deep safety look.

I would be inclined to blame Rodgers. He seems unwilling or unable to check down. Or when he does, he gets happy feet and was sailing throws. The second half of the Bears game, it started to click.

It's an interesting game in that respect. In the first half, we saw more of Bad-Aaron. In the second, he was on. Yes, his yard per attempt for the game was still low. In the second half though, it was over 8 yard per attempt, even with a mainly ****-and-dunk plan.

What changed? Rodgers was setting his feet and was hitting guys like he was supposed to. Even a 5 yard dump off is a lot better for the average than a 0 yard incompletion. And hitting all of those dump offs is why the game opened up later. Either the defense lessened their man-2 shell play calls and/or got the defensive players thinking about the wrong thing and cause errors.

It's also possible that the Bears stayed in man-2 for more of the game and we just didn't shoot ourselves in the foot. Which is also fine. If the defense is so worried about getting beat for the deep throw and surrenders the 5-7 throw all game, that's still okay.

 

[Carl]

OK, so then why are the Packers the team that doesn't run short passes that help the receivers get open? I'm still not hearing why the Packers are fundamentally incapable of beating a 2 deep safety look.

The Rock Report on Packers.com this week shows how they just did it twice for touchdowns.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Rock Report on Packers.com this week shows how they just did it twice for touchdowns.

OK, that's good, they should do it more. Still doesn't answer why the excuse of two deep safeties is constantly used ONLY for the Packers when it comes to an inability to threaten a defense deep.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OK, that's good, they should do it more. Still doesn't answer why the excuse of two deep safeties is constantly used ONLY for the Packers when it comes to an inability to threaten a defense deep.

It's likely you only hear it about the Packers offense because you follow the team more closely than other teams.

 

[Carl]

It's also possible that the Bears stayed in man-2 for more of the game and we just didn't shoot ourselves in the foot. Which is also fine. If the defense is so worried about getting beat for the deep throw and surrenders the 5-7 throw all game, that's still okay.

You're last paragraph sums it up perfectly to me.

Without the errors vs. Dallas, the offense would have been just fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fair enough.

The hierarchy in my household is, starting at the top, my wife, my oldest daughter, my youngest daughter, the female dog, the female rabbit, bugs, dirt, me. So, am guilty as charged.

But... when the Packer game is on, I get the couch, the remote, the TV, my cold beer, a pillow or two to throw at my whim and anything else I damn well want. It's my one slice of heaven. The house would have to be burning down for my wife or kids to interrupt my world. No joke.

Sounds like the women in your life have figured out a sure fire way to shut you up for a guaranteed 3+ hrs a week.

 

[mradtke66]

OK, that's good, they should do it more. Still doesn't answer why the excuse of two deep safeties is constantly used ONLY for the Packers when it comes to an inability to threaten a defense deep.

It's not. I'll try to break it down.

Cover-2 (and it's son, Tampa-2) and Man-2 are great coverages that prevent the long play. The jobs are relatively simple and you have two safeties who have the sole job of "Don't get beat deep."

So why doesn't everyone run cover-2 all the time? Because it, like everything else in life, has compromises. 2-deep shells can be hurt by the running game (7 men in the box for base, 6 for nickel) because you don't have that extra safety in the box. I can be hurt with under throws. Cover-2 can be beat by flooding zones. Cover-2 can also be hurt if you don't have the pass rush. All zones have holes, but it takes some time to exploit those holes.

Which leads us to other teams. It's the chess match of playcalling. Teams have stats men that cover down and distance, formation, route combination, etc. You try to run the defense to take away the common/most likely play concepts based on the above.

Even the players know these details, it's what film study is about. Good pros likely know the most likely combination when It's 2nd and 3-6 yard to go, on the 44 yard line, right hash mark, with 11 personnel from gun with the slot guy in motion to the wide side. Now imagine what the coordinators have up stairs with the big stack of papers.

The book on the Packers has probably been something like

1) Play Man-2 to take away the deep and intermediate throws.

2) Lacey won't be able to hurt us for a long drive due to his weight/asthma, so we can live with a couple of first downs. Keep in a 7 man front.

3) Rodgers is unwilling or unable to hit check downs and quick throws. Keep 2 safeties deep.

Finally, against the Bears, the Packers were able to execute well enough to beat man-2.

Cover-3 is also a good big-play-prevention defense, but it's almost too simple. The Seahawks run it well, but they have 2 phenomenal in Sherman and Thomas that makes the scheme go.