Who stood out..who didn't at minicamp...

[pyledriver80]

he did what he did. he was the gunslinger, and when you gunsling with no WRs, no oline, and an abandoned run game, you throw 29 ints. Could he have pulled back and not thrown some of them, damn straight! But thats not what favre does. So thats why the team had to improve the line (which it appears to, even though its still not near ideal) and some WRs(a lot of average depth, no gamebreakers, but guys who are pros at least, not practice squad jobbers), and a run game(good run blocking guards, and najeh,ahman,samkon,herron)

Things will be easier for Favre this year, thank god. But if I see the line being abused(which could happen at times no doubt), and empty backfield sets WHILE thats happening, I will be calling for McCarthys job, JUST like I did Shermans.

An Abandoned run game? Do you mean No Run Game?

The O-line was hideous, and though some feel better about this years line it's based on optimism only. I think this line will be similars to last years. It doesn't matter if you have an Empty backfield or run the Full House it's still 11 on 11 football and though Favre might not get killed with extra blockers in, good luck finding a place to throw the ball.

If the line can't block without keeping 2 extra pass protectors back you've already lost half the battle. There isa reason people in football say "It all starts up Front"

 

[tromadz]

507 rush attempts in 2003, with 31.7 att\game

441 rush attempts in 2004, with 27.6 att\game

398 rush attempts in 2005, with 24.9 att\game
------------------
3rd in rushing yards in 2003

10th in rushing yards in 2004

30th in rushing yards in 2005
------------------

 

[TomAllen]

That's right. No run game. No matter how many attempts, imo.

 

[thetombradyhater]

Tromadz knows what he's talking about

 

[pyledriver80]

507 rush attempts in 2003, with 31.7 att\game

441 rush attempts in 2004, with 27.6 att\game

398 rush attempts in 2005, with 24.9 att\game
------------------
3rd in rushing yards in 2003

10th in rushing yards in 2004

30th in rushing yards in 2005
------------------

What is this supposed to show? When you run the ball more you are going to have more yards rushing?


It's not about the number of attempts it's about how effective it is.

 

[Greg C.]

Reports that Mike Sherman abandoned the running game have been greatly exaggerated. He DID abandon it at times, but overall, I don't think it was a major problem with his coaching. And of course, when he stuck with the running game he was blasted by many for being "too conservative," even when the Packers won the game.

Getting back to Christl's assessment, I found it very interesting. There are huge concerns at wide receiver, guard, and running back. What also concerns me is that this team is looking like it could have a good defense but a bad offense, which would favor a QB who plays conservatively and protects the football, a la Trent Dilfer with the Ravens in 2000 or Kyle Orton with the Bears last year.

It goes without saying that this style of playing QB is not what Brett Favre is all about. So at this point I'm not sure if this team will play to Favre's strengths. We need at least one more playmaker, in addition to Donald Driver, to step forward, either at receiver or running back, or we could see Favre slipping back into the kind of reckless play that we saw from him last year. We need more offensive talent, period. And it seems to me that this team is at least a year, and probably two years away from having a good mix of talent and experience on offense, if it's going to happen at all.

 

[DePack]

Depacks stats about how many times Brett threw the ball has NOTHING to do with how soon we abandoned the running game. How about listing how many running attempts were had per game.

I believe Sherman abandoned the run early and often, and for all the wrong reasons. The stat of 33 attempts per game doesn't mean anything with the knowledge of downs of possession were had each game. Brett threw 29 ints last year, of course his passing attempts will seem low! the other team had the damn ball.

The best thing that happened to Sherman's stint was Brett's broken thumb, we were forced to run the ball and we ran it well.

Back on topic. Pooey about Fergie. I too was hoping that someday he'd be somebody. I am going to state my predictions for the year of 6-10.

Sherman's pass to run ratio is lower than Holmgren's was at Green Bay.


My point was we DID abandon the run last season but not as a function of Sherman's coaching (look at his whole career). It was a function of game situations (being behind) and injuries to our backs. If you can't see that then you don't want to.

Damn, if Sherman kept running the ball, people would be bitcking about how he should have opened it up.

 

[cheesey]

I STOOD OUT AT CAMP!!!! (I stood out by the fence!!!)LOLOLOL!!! :lol:

 

[tromadz]

During the year there were ariticles on how Green takes time to get going(I wasnt really aware, i didnt really care), but combine that with low attempts = no run game.

(yes, the o line helped with the no run game)

 

[thetombradyhater]

507 rush attempts in 2003, with 31.7 att\game

441 rush attempts in 2004, with 27.6 att\game

398 rush attempts in 2005, with 24.9 att\game
------------------
3rd in rushing yards in 2003

10th in rushing yards in 2004

30th in rushing yards in 2005
------------------

What is this supposed to show? When you run the ball more you are going to have more yards rushing?


It's not about the number of attempts it's about how effective it is.

its suppose to show we abandoned the run game exactly what you said we didn't

An Abandoned run game? Do you mean No Run Game?

 

[arrowgargantuan]

its suppose to show we abandoned the run game exactly what you said we didn't

actually, pyle was basically saying Sherman was justified in doing so, not denying the fact that we didn't have a balanced running game.

this argument bores me, where's my jesters!?!.

 

[thetombradyhater]

this argument bores me

then do what AADP would do LOCK IT!!!!!! :rotflmao: :lol: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[pyledriver80]

507 rush attempts in 2003, with 31.7 att\game

441 rush attempts in 2004, with 27.6 att\game

398 rush attempts in 2005, with 24.9 att\game
------------------
3rd in rushing yards in 2003

10th in rushing yards in 2004

30th in rushing yards in 2005
------------------

What is this supposed to show? When you run the ball more you are going to have more yards rushing?


It's not about the number of attempts it's about how effective it is.

its suppose to show we abandoned the run game exactly what you said we didn't

An Abandoned run game? Do you mean No Run Game?

Again, why do you think it was abandoned? It was because it wasn't effective! Do you think if Green,Davenport,etc broke off 40 yard runs frequently that he would have still thrown it? The line sucked, period.

You guys act like this is advanced coaching or something. I am sure Sherman knew he had to establish the run but thanks to TT inability to resign or properly replace our OG's it was impossible.

It's not rocket science people, you are not going to open up the run game when you are throwing balls to Taco Wallace and Andre Thurman and have a line looser than Paris Hilton.


The run attempts were down because this team was 4-12 and playing from behind most of the season. I could understand the complaint if we actually ran the ball effectively but we could not! So we were supposed to be down by 17 points in the 4th quarter and turn to our INEFFECTIVE running game?

 

[tromadz]

so unless Rbs break off 40 yarders, throw it out? lol.

 

[pack4life]

507 rush attempts in 2003, with 31.7 att\game

441 rush attempts in 2004, with 27.6 att\game

398 rush attempts in 2005, with 24.9 att\game
------------------
3rd in rushing yards in 2003

10th in rushing yards in 2004

30th in rushing yards in 2005
------------------

What is this supposed to show? When you run the ball more you are going to have more yards rushing?


It's not about the number of attempts it's about how effective it is.

its suppose to show we abandoned the run game exactly what you said we didn't

An Abandoned run game? Do you mean No Run Game?

Again, why do you think it was abandoned? It was because it wasn't effective! Do you think if Green,Davenport,etc broke off 40 yard runs frequently that he would have still thrown it? The line sucked, period.

You guys act like this is advanced coaching or something. I am sure Sherman knew he had to establish the run but thanks to TT inability to resign or properly replace our OG's it was impossible.

It's not rocket science people, you are not going to open up the run game when you are throwing balls to Taco Wallace and Andre Thurman and have a line looser than Paris Hilton.


The run attempts were down because this team was 4-12 and playing from behind most of the season. I could understand the complaint if we actually ran the ball effectively but we could not! So we were supposed to be down by 17 points in the 4th quarter and turn to our INEFFECTIVE running game?

I really don't remember too many games where we were down by 17 or more points in the 4th quarter.....

 

[Zero2Cool]

I really don't remember too many games where we were down by 17 or more points in the 4th quarter.....

For the same reason you don't know what kind of boxers I put on this morning. IT DIDNT HAPPEN I'M GOING COMMANDO!! heh


Edit, wtf is this? The day I'm wrong on everything?

Going into the fourth quarter.

• Packers - 3
  Ravens - 34
  
  Bears - 24
  Packers - 7

There was another time it was 13 points by I think the Panthers. Other than that nothing really comes close to 17 points. I think the next most was mid single digits.

 

[thetombradyhater]

yeah its not like we were blown out all the time. Most of the time we were within a score so there wasn't that much urgency. If were down by 7 with a whole quarter or half left why not establish the run?

 

[billv]

When you're ahead and trying to work the clock, you run the ball. That accounts for many of the more carries we had in previous years compared to last year.

 

[all about da packers]

yeah its not like we were blown out all the time. Most of the time we were within a score so there wasn't that much urgency. If were down by 7 with a whole quarter or half left why not establish the run?

How?

You seem to forget that until Gado came along, we had NO run game. Our OG were TERRIBLE. The line was out of sync. Our RBs were a step too slow. How could we establish the run, when everytime we tried to run we ended up with a loss?

 

[pyledriver80]

When you're ahead and trying to work the clock, you run the ball. That accounts for many of the more carries we had in previous years compared to last year.

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You keep saying we should have established the run. With What? Were we supposed to call Denver up mid 4th quarter and get them to ship some linemen over?

I do agree we should have established the run..................Long before TT let Wahle and Rivera go without having any plan on how to replace them.


How do you establish a run game with players that are incapable of doing so? Watch the game and study how football is played. When you can't run the ball you pass it to loosen up the Defense. If you are successful in that attempt and you still can't run, it's because your O-Line blows. If you can't pass and you can't run you go 4-12. It's remedial.

If you are unable to run your only option is passing using short passes such as screens and passes to the flat to substitute for the ineffectiveness of the ground game. You keep saying run,run,run but we tried and we got stuffed, stuffed, stuffed.

 

[all about da packers]

How do you establish a run game with players that are incapable of doing so?

Precisely, you simply can't establish the run in that position. And that is the position we were in last year.

 

[tromadz]

then why do people talk about samkon gado? Cuz he sucked at the run and had god awful blocking?

No, cuz he had a great debut and did great things with a god awful line.

We also had Ahman green early on(5 weeks was it?).

Did the o-line suck? sure, it wasnt good, thats for damn sure.

The difference is this:

-Ahman takes a while to get into a groove
-Gado doesn't

And by the time Ahman was getting near his groove, the run game was all but abandoned already.

Players incapable of a run game? Are you kidding me? Are they players incapable of being all pros? yeah, but incapable of ESTABLISHING(not even dominating) a run game?

Tell that to Ahman,Najeh,Samkon,Clifton,Tauscher,Wells,Whitticker,Flanagan.

I am acknowledging the Oline wasnt good...but not capable of establishing a run game? Okay, "coach"

Tromadz.....OUT

(nighty beddy bye time)

 

[all about da packers]

Trom, you said the players were capable. Hm, well if any player is capable of playing any scheme, why do we have a new vsion of the O-line personelle that will work the new zone blocking scheme?

And as for Gado being a quick starter, what are you basing your observations on? One season? That is ignorant. He obviously didn't get going in NCAA, because he was a 3rd down back. He obviously didn't get going with the Cheifs, because he was cut. He got going with the Packers, which if you look at it, shows he isn't a fast starter.

You also convinently forget to point out that Wells replaced Klemm as our LG. Last season, the line was shambles. They had no chemistry, Klemm was out of position, and Whitt was thrown to the wolves. you can't expect any decency there.

The man-to-man blocking the Packers employed last year required the Guards to be able to do certain things. The guards TT got weren't able to. The Packers were already digging their own graves.

 

[tromadz]

Trom, you said the players were capable. Hm, well if any player is capable of playing any scheme, why...

When did I say any player is capable of playing any scheme?LOL. Nowhere? Ok, then.

Don't try to swerve us with your lawyer jedi mind tricks.

edit- then you call me ignorant? nice one, MOD!

edit 2-so you're saying one offensive line position (the klemm\wells swap) is the reason we suddenly had a run game?

very interesting, and by interesting, i mean stupid.

 

[all about da packers]

I'm not gonna even bother with this. Didn't mean to take shots at you trom, we both know I'm right.

Guys - Remember not to go for each others heads in here.