Why do the Packers struggle to beat good teams?

[NOMOFO]

I doubt he's going to change the way he's played his entire life.

You are probably correct...but it's humane nature to attempt something different if what you are doing has you coming up just short. That's a hard thing to fight.

In fact, there's a small bastion of Packer fans that honestly believe the Packers don't win the Superbowl every season for the sole reason that Aaron Rodgers doesn't "take enough chances."

 

[Oski]

You are probably correct...but it's humane nature to attempt something different if what you are doing has you coming up just short. That's a hard thing to fight.

In fact, there's a small bastion of Packer fans that honestly believe the Packers don't win the Superbowl every season for the sole reason that Aaron Rodgers doesn't "take enough chances."

if anything he holds onto the ball far too long.

 

[OldSchool101]

. Run Run Pass Punt. run Run pass punt run run pass punt. Brilliant philosophy!
Right out of the 1978 playbook

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's because people still think the Packers have an elite offense when we actually just have an explosive offense that relies almost entirely on Nelson. The Vikings game lead a lot of people to think the Packers offense was "back" because we dominated that game when in fact that domination was because the Vikings were without AD and Ponder was playing QB on a short week. The Packers offense went 3-n-out on 6/12 possessions agaisnt the Vikings. Against the Dolphins it wasn't quite as bad but the Packers still gained 31 yards or fewer on 6/11 possessions.

People can complain about the playcalling on offense (and it's not stellar) but the personnel options for offense are VERY limited. Not real sure why they refuse to play the best TE on the roster in Bostick (he started last season but suddenly this year he doesn't know the playbook?) but none of the TEs are threats in the passing game and none of the TEs can block. So basically the only offensive skill players the Packers offense has to work with are Nelson, Cobb and Adams (not including the RBs because the running game has sucked this year). There's not a ton of creativity you can use when you have to start three WRs (one is a rookie) and your tackles can't run block and your TEs can't threaten defenses or run block either.

The Packers right now are underwhelming to say the least on offense and their defense has actually helped win games this year. Not sure how much longer that will last with Brad Jones starting at linebacker and Shields/Williams potentially missing quite a few games.

 

[Oski]

It's because people still think the Packers have an elite offense when we actually just have an explosive offense that relies almost entirely on Nelson. The Vikings game lead a lot of people to think the Packers offense was "back" because we dominated that game when in fact that domination was because the Vikings were without AD and Ponder was playing QB on a short week. The Packers offense went 3-n-out on 6/12 possessions agaisnt the Vikings. Against the Dolphins it wasn't quite as bad but the Packers still gained 31 yards or fewer on 6/11 possessions.

People can complain about the playcalling on offense (and it's not stellar) but the personnel options for offense are VERY limited. Not real sure why they refuse to play the best TE on the roster in Bostick (he started last season but suddenly this year he doesn't know the playbook?) but none of the TEs are threats in the passing game and none of the TEs can block. So basically the only offensive skill players the Packers offense has to work with are Nelson, Cobb and Adams (not including the RBs because the running game has sucked this year). There's not a ton of creativity you can use when you have to start three WRs (one is a rookie) and your tackles can't run block and your TEs can't threaten defenses or run block either.

The Packers right now are underwhelming to say the least on offense and their defense has actually helped win games this year. Not sure how much longer that will last with Brad Jones starting at linebacker and Shields/Williams potentially missing quite a few games.

Yes. A pass rush kills this offense and I don't see that changing anytime soon either. Rodgers and Nelson can only do so much.

 

[TJV]

The only rational argument to run it on first and second down constantly is you are afraid of turnovers.

No it's not. It's also to reduce the number of hits the QB is taking in the passing game. It's also to open up the passing game. My guess is TOs would be third on this list.

 

[Oski]

No it's not. It's also to reduce the number of hits the QB is taking in the passing game. It's also to open up the passing game. My guess is TOs would be third on this list.

You can open up the passing game and still not run on every first and second down. You just need to keep the other team honest. You don't need to run on every play. and there is no chance that reducing the number of hits on the qb is even in the equation.

 

[TJV]

and there is no chance that reducing the number of hits on the qb is even in the equation.

So HCs aren't concerned with the number of hits their QBs take?

 

[Oski]

So HCs aren't concerned with the number of hits their QBs take?

No, I'm saying you'd be crazy to assume that factors into the run/pass ratio. You can tell me that's why they don't have a bunched of designed runs in the playbook, but that's why he's running it on first down? ridiculous

 

[TJV]

No, I'm saying you'd be crazy to assume that factors into the run/pass ratio. You can tell me that's why they don't have a bunched of designed runs in the playbook, but that's why he's running it on first down? ridiculous

I'm saying you are crazy for assuming McCarthy is not concerned with the number of times Rodgers gets hit. BTW, need a translation on the bolded part - no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Oski]

I'm saying you are crazy for assuming McCarthy is not concerned with the number of times Rodgers gets hit. BTW, need a translation on the bolded part - no idea what you're trying to say.

No, I'm saying it's ridiculous to assume the run/pass balance has anything to do with Mccarthy not wanting Rodgers to be hit. What does running it an extra say 10 times a game result in? At best maybe 2 extra hits on Rodgers? You are telling me that Mccarthy is worried enough about an extra 2 hits a game that he feels compelled to run it more on first and second down? If so, he's even dumber than I think he is. I'm saying that you can convince me we don't have designed qb runs for the sake of Rodgers health, you can't convince me that we are running it more for that reason.

 

[NOMOFO]

No, I'm saying it's ridiculous to assume the run/pass balance has anything to do with Mccarthy not wanting Rodgers to be hit. What does running it an extra say 10 times a game result in? At best maybe 2 extra hits on Rodgers? You are telling me that Mccarthy is worried enough about an extra 2 hits a game that he feels compelled to run it more on first and second down? If so, he's even dumber than I think he is. I'm saying that you can convince me we don't have designed qb runs for the sake of Rodgers health, you can't convince me that we are running it more for that reason.

Sorry, you are completely wrong. It absolutely is a large part of the run/pass mix. There is no question about it. None.

That's fine that you can't be "convinced" but you are wrong.

By keeping the defense honest you are slowing down the pass rush and hence, cutting the chances Rodgers gets hit.

McCarthy is well aware that this team goes nowhere if Rodgers is hurt and to question that he doesn't manage his offense
accordingly is actually "ridiculous". There is a difference between "playing scared" and "playing smart". Mac, IMO, does a great job of "playing smart" with Rodgers.

 

[JBlood]

To run or pass effectively, CONSISTENTLY, depends on a solid offensive line to control the LOS--especially against the good teams in the league. We haven't had that since Larry Beightol was around. So we are dependent on the best QB in the league to make up for a weak line, and he's very good at it. But, unless he goes on a streak similar to the end of 2010 there's little likelihood of another Championship with this team. What is needed is a tough, hard-hitting, working class team--the type of team that MM promised when he was hired.

 

[OldSchool101]

I've said plenty Of times that although many people consider the importance of the OL rhetoric. They will make or break a QB. I thought we would go after a KR and a OL pick early in the first half of the draft. Protecting Rodgers, and giving him adequate space and providing a push for Eddie are detrimental to the success on offense. IMO, it's not coincidence that the games we start AR n Co at the 16 yard line every drive we suffer. where is our Hester? Where is Howard?

 

[TJV]

Obviously Oski and I (and some others) have basic disagreements about McCarthy's offense. First, he doesn't use the rest of the league as a benchmark. This is such a basic concept I really don’t believe it needs explaining and IMO not using the NFL as a benchmark indicates unrealistic expectations.

Why do we care if the rest of the NFL is as conservative as he is?

There it is: Apparently no HC/OC in the NFL is aggressive enough.

He has posted as if he doesn't know the difference between a dive play and a stretch play. The difference is not subtle if you know anything about OL play as it involves the difference between zone blocking and traditional blocking techniques. He first posted:

No, I think that if the defense knows a running play is coming it makes it very easy to defend. In particular, if the vast majority of them are up the middle.

Then:

I count 65% of the first downs as runs. All either up the middle or off the right or left tackle.

Yes. Not one run "over the top" or purposely backwards – all of them left, right or up the middle.

He says the offense is 90-100% because of Rodgers so I cite last year's stats. He replies they averaged 21 points without Rodgers but their overall point production under McCarthy ranks about 7th in the league on average and it’s less than a TD more than those 21 points. Rodgers is fantastic but he isn't 90-100% responsible for point production.

He has yet to mention McCarthy's role in developing Rodgers. Did Mike wake up one Christmas with a fully developed Aaron Rodgers under the tree? Or does he have no memory of what Rodgers looked like the first couple of years in the league? Does McCarthy get no credit for the QB Rodgers is today?

No, I'm saying it's ridiculous to assume the run/pass balance has anything to do with Mccarthy not wanting Rodgers to be hit.

NOMOFO addressed this issue well – of course it's not just the number of running plays vs. passing plays. It is preventing the defense from 'pinning their ears back' and attempting to crush Rodgers. OL gain an advantage when they can fire out at DL on a dive play and if DL know the offense runs ZBS they have to worry about their legs getting cut. Against teams that trap block they have to worry about getting blindsided. Imagine if Oski had his way and the Packers passed 75%, 85% or more against teams with good to very good front sevens. Not only would Rodgers be on IR but they would need 5 or 6 QBs to get through the season.

 

[NOMOFO]

To run or pass effectively, CONSISTENTLY, depends on a solid offensive line to control the LOS--especially against the good teams in the league. We haven't had that since Larry Beightol was around. So we are dependent on the best QB in the league to make up for a weak line, and he's very good at it. But, unless he goes on a streak similar to the end of 2010 there's little likelihood of another Championship with this team. What is needed is a tough, hard-hitting, working class team--the type of team that MM promised when he was hired.

You are probably correct...but dare I say it could be much worse? At least our blocking is "generally sufficient enough" that Rodgers doesn't get violently hit 10 times a game. In watching the Rams attempt to blitz pick up last night... Wow...ya...it could be worse Packer fans. Man they were brutal.

 

[Oski]

Sorry, you are completely wrong. It absolutely is a large part of the run/pass mix. There is no question about it. None.

That's fine that you can't be "convinced" but you are wrong.

By keeping the defense honest you are slowing down the pass rush and hence, cutting the chances Rodgers gets hit.

McCarthy is well aware that this team goes nowhere if Rodgers is hurt and to question that he doesn't manage his offense
accordingly is actually "ridiculous". There is a difference between "playing scared" and "playing smart". Mac, IMO, does a great job of "playing smart" with Rodgers.

oh well as long as you say so. . .

you act like I'm advocating we throw it 70 times a game. . .

 

[Oski]

Obviously Oski and I (and some others) have basic disagreements about McCarthy's offense. First, he doesn't use the rest of the league as a benchmark. This is such a basic concept I really don’t believe it needs explaining and IMO not using the NFL as a benchmark indicates unrealistic expectations. There it is: Apparently no HC/OC in the NFL is aggressive enough.

He has posted as if he doesn't know the difference between a dive play and a stretch play. The difference is not subtle if you know anything about OL play as it involves the difference between zone blocking and traditional blocking techniques. He first posted: Then: Yes. Not one run "over the top" or purposely backwards – all of them left, right or up the middle.

He says the offense is 90-100% because of Rodgers so I cite last year's stats. He replies they averaged 21 points without Rodgers but their overall point production under McCarthy ranks about 7th in the league on average and it’s less than a TD more than those 21 points. Rodgers is fantastic but he isn't 90-100% responsible for point production.

He has yet to mention McCarthy's role in developing Rodgers. Did Mike wake up one Christmas with a fully developed Aaron Rodgers under the tree? Or does he have no memory of what Rodgers looked like the first couple of years in the league? Does McCarthy get no credit for the QB Rodgers is today? NOMOFO addressed this issue well – of course it's not just the number of running plays vs. passing plays. It is preventing the defense from 'pinning their ears back' and attempting to crush Rodgers. OL gain an advantage when they can fire out at DL on a dive play and if DL know the offense runs ZBS they have to worry about their legs getting cut. Against teams that trap block they have to worry about getting blindsided. Imagine if Oski had his way and the Packers passed 75%, 85% or more against teams with good to very good front sevens. Not only would Rodgers be on IR but they would need 5 or 6 QBs to get through the season.

Yes, it has been proven over and over again that most NFL coaches and OCs are too conservative. McCarthy is certainly in the majority because of that. I think chip Kelly has proven pretty clearly that the "that's the way everyone does it" doesn't necessarily make it the correct or best thing to do.

No. I said the difference isn't material enough to the defense to not have an advantage if you know we are running the ball. The "left, right, or middle" were directly from the box score and that is why I referred to it that way.

I suggested that the outperformance was due to Rodgers and not McCarthy, not that 100% of the point production was due to Rodgers. The fact that the point production dropped significantly without Rodgers should be ample evidence no?

I remember Rodgers having exceptional preseasons. I also watched every play he played in college and I assure you he is the same qb he was then. This idea that Rodgers was built into what he is now is a complete fabrication. The guy was jesus in cleats the second he stepped on the cal campus.

Never have I suggested that we should be throwing it 80% of the time. I want a rush/pass balance. That means not running it 65% of the time on first down and make yourself predictable. Believe it or not, you can run it on other downs and maintain a 50/50 balance.

 

[red4tribe]

I suggested that the outperformance was due to Rodgers and not McCarthy, not that 100% of the point production was due to Rodgers. The fact that the point production dropped significantly without Rodgers should be ample evidence no?

I don't know if this point is really fair to MM. Rodgers is without a doubt, one of the best if not the best QB in the league. When you lose a QB of that caliber, it doesn't matter who is the head coach, you're going to suffer a decrease in ppg. The 2008 Patriots scored 11 points less per game than in 2007. Does that mean that BB is not really a great coach as the offensive stats of the Patriots declined significantly between '07 and '08? I think you have to put BB among the top 20 head coaches of all time.

The examples don't stop there. The 2010 Colts scored 27.2 ppg, and then fell to 15.2 ppg in 2011. Even someone you might not regard as a great QB, Carson Palmer, was sorely missed in 2008. The Bengals averaged 23.8 ppg in 2007 and that fell to 12.8 ppg in 2008.

The Packers? Even with Rodgers missing almost half of the season, they averaged 26.1 ppg. In 2012, with a healthy Rodgers, they averaged only 1 more point a game, 27.1 ppg. If anything, MM should be lauded for keeping the Packers in the hunt with Flynn at the helm(something Caldwell and Lewis couldn't do), and seeing only a minor drop-off in offensive production.

 

[Oski]

I don't know if this point is really fair to MM. Rodgers is without a doubt, one of the best if not the best QB in the league. When you lose a QB of that caliber, it doesn't matter who is the head coach, you're going to suffer a decrease in ppg. The 2008 Patriots scored 11 points less per game than in 2007. Does that mean that BB is not really a great coach as the offensive stats of the Patriots declined significantly between '07 and '08? I think you have to put BB among the top 20 head coaches of all time.

The examples don't stop there. The 2010 Colts scored 27.2 ppg, and then fell to 15.2 ppg in 2011. Even someone you might not regard as a great QB, Carson Palmer, was sorely missed in 2008. The Bengals averaged 23.8 ppg in 2007 and that fell to 12.8 ppg in 2008.

The Packers? Even with Rodgers missing almost half of the season, they averaged 26.1 ppg. In 2012, with a healthy Rodgers, they averaged only 1 more point a game, 27.1 ppg. If anything, MM should be lauded for keeping the Packers in the hunt with Flynn at the helm(something Caldwell and Lewis couldn't do), and seeing only a minor drop-off in offensive production.

the games without Rodgers were at 21 points a game. And of course you are going to see a drop. I seem to remember belicheck went 11-5 with matt cassell at qb. Mccarthy, against a terrible schedule, went 2-4 without Rodgers. And to be clear I don't think McCarthy is the worst coach in America or something ridiculous like that. I simply think that his gaudy regular season records and super bowl are due to having the best qb of our generation.

http://www.footballperspective.com/records-with-and-without-a-quarterback-aaron-rodgers-edition/

 

[Carl]

I remember Rodgers having exceptional preseasons. I also watched every play he played in college and I assure you he is the same qb he was then. This idea that Rodgers was built into what he is now is a complete fabrication. The guy was jesus in cleats the second he stepped on the cal campus.

Never have I suggested that we should be throwing it 80% of the time. I want a rush/pass balance. That means not running it 65% of the time on first down and make yourself predictable. Believe it or not, you can run it on other downs and maintain a 50/50 balance.

That's a joke about Rodgers, right? If he was that good then, why didn't he go number one overall? He didn't even earn the starting job into 5 games into his first season at Cal.

Just go back and watch highlights of his first season as a starter. He was solid, but not nearly the best in league, as many consider him to be now.

Rodgers is significantly better now than he was coming into the league. It's not even arguable.

 

[Carl]

the games without Rodgers were at 21 points a game. And of course you are going to see a drop. I seem to remember belicheck went 11-5 with matt cassell at qb. Mccarthy, against a terrible schedule, went 2-4 without Rodgers. And to be clear I don't think McCarthy is the worst coach in America or something ridiculous like that. I simply think that his gaudy regular season records and super bowl are due to having the best qb of our generation.

http://www.footballperspective.com/records-with-and-without-a-quarterback-aaron-rodgers-edition/

Colts, Vikings, Texans, and Chiefs are all teams that recently had terrible seasons after losing a QB. The Patriots season of 11-5 was an exception to what normally happens to teams when their starter goes down.

The Patriots were fortunate enough that their backup also didn't get hurt the game after their starter. I bet they wouldn't have been 11-5 with their 3rd stringer.

 

[Oski]

That's a joke about Rodgers, right? If he was that good then, why didn't he go number one overall?

Just go back and watch highlights of his first season as a starter. He was solid, but not nearly the best in league, as many consider him to be now.

Rodgers is significantly better now than he was coming into the league. It's not even arguable.

The 49ers almost picked him #1 overall. No one else desperately wanted a qb. This is well documented.

He had one of the best first seasons of any qb in nfl history. He is the only qb in nfl history to have thrown for 4,000 yards in both of his first years. Marino didn't even do that.

All qbs are better in year 5 than year 1 baring injury. I'm suggesting he wasn't some unpolished stone. Not sure why you have to turn every argument of mine into the extremes.

 

[Oski]

Colts, Vikings, Texans, and Chiefs are all teams that recently had terrible seasons after losing a QB. The Patriots season of 11-5 was an exception to what normally happens to teams when their starter goes down.

The Patriots were fortunate enough that their backup also didn't get hurt the game after their starter. I bet they wouldn't have been 11-5 with their 3rd stringer.

All of which have coaches not very well thought of. Of course, losing your starting qb hurts all teams. It hurts a lot less with the ones with great coaches. Look at reid in phili. remember him losing qb after qb and seeing almost no drop off? I guarantee you that if Fowles went down Phili currently wouldn't lose a step.

Fair point, but the packers backup wasn't very good anyway.

You are giving me a bunch of evidence that he's no worse than anyone else. Well, that same evidence can suggest he's no better either no?

 

[Carl]

The 49ers almost picked him #1 overall. No one else desperately wanted a qb. This is well documented.

He had one of the best first seasons of any qb in nfl history.

All qbs are better in year 5 than year 1 baring injury. I'm suggesting he wasn't some unpolished stone. Not sure why you have to turn every argument of mine into the extremes.

You just said, "I assure you he is the same qb he was then." and now it's "All qbs are better in year 5 than year 1 baring injury. I'm suggesting he wasn't some unpolished stone."

It's hard to have discussions when you switch your stance mid discussion.