Why do the Packers struggle to beat good teams?

[longtimefan]

College coach

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...een-qbs-game-evolve-b9992257z1-222767991.html

Rodgers always had powerful legs and hips, which is another physical attribute that plays into the velocity and accuracy of his throws. One of the specific things he sees that Rodgers has developed in the pros is a tapping of his right foot while waiting for a route to open up.

Tedford said that most quarterbacks take a hitch step when they're trying to buy a second in the pocket, but Rodgers just taps his foot like a second baseman tagging the bag on a double play. The advantage is that he doesn't lose any opportunity to uncork the ball.


What I think they've done with him, he's always been pretty good in the pocket, but I'm really impressed with his pace in the pocket and his poise and his feet. It seems like he's always on rhythm."

What they have done with him...To me that means his college coach is saying Rodgers coaches on the pros have worked to perfect Rodgers

 

[Carl]

lol... now you are back to trying to reason with him? It's futile.

I need to learn when to stop...

 

[Oski]

We all know he was one of the best in college football, that's why he was a 1st rounder. That's providing nothing new to this discussion.

Nobody claims he wasn't talented in college. We're just claiming he's gotten better.

I'm suggesting that at core he was the same qb. That the tweaks and improvements were not huge. And not to beat a dead horse I think if you watched the video I posted I think you'd see an awful lot of the same rodgers we see today.

 

[longtimefan]

Every qb gets better the first 5 years. You obviously think he got many many orders of magnitude better given the things you said about him early in his career.

You stated he is the same as he was in college...I showed his own quote stated he had to change, and uotes from his college coach saying how he has changed..

Yet you still want to claim rodgers hasnt changed?

 

[Oski]

College coach

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...een-qbs-game-evolve-b9992257z1-222767991.html




What they have done with him...To me that means his college coach is saying Rodgers coaches on the pros have worked to perfect Rodgers

Once again, small changes and improvements.

 

[Pack-12]

Every qb gets better the first 5 years. You obviously think he got many many orders of magnitude better given the things you said about him early in his career.

If that were true none of these QBs who were great players in college would bust at such a high rate.

 

[Oski]

You stated he is the same as he was in college...I showed his own quote stated he had to change, and uotes from his college coach saying how he has changed..

Yet you still want to claim rodgers hasnt changed?

Who the hell says he hasn't changed at all? It was pretty firmly stated here that he wasn't good early in his career. And I'm suggesting that was not even remotely true

 

[Oski]

If that were true none of these QBs who were great players in college would bust at such a high rate.

Not all college qbs game translates to the NFL. Hell I bet tebow is a better qb today than he was in college.

 

[longtimefan]

Once again, small changes and improvements.

When someone posts, he is the SAME, that means nothing has change..Those were your words..So you should expect some flak over that ststement

If you would have said, the core and talent was there in college, we would agree

 

[Oski]

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? NOMO.

For reference. This is what I was replying to. If we all agree rodgers was good, then why do I need to remember what he looked like the first couple of years in the league? Now do you understand the context of my statement?

 

[Oski]

When someone posts, he is the SAME, that means nothing has change..Those were your words..So you should expect some flak over that ststement

If you would have said, the core and talent was there in college, we would agree

Look at the context of the post I responded to and my entire response instead of quoting one statement and igoring the context. It was pretty clear I wasn't saying he was exactly the same and was arguing at core he was the same. it's strange that you are all so literal minded. I guess i need to spell things out for you better. I'll remember that for the future.

 

[NOMOFO]

Just shoot me.

 

[Oski]

Just shoot me.

Now you know how i feel

 

[Carl]

Look at the context of the post I responded to and my entire response instead of quoting one statement and igoring the context. It was pretty clear I wasn't saying he was exactly the same.

Dude, it was your exact words and the rest of your post was about other topics like run/bass balance and being conservative. There's no way anyone sensible could have interpreted it any other way.

I'm going to stop arguing with you about any topic as reasoning is impossible.

I would use ignore, but I'd like to have a laugh at your future posts.

 

[Oski]

Dude, it was your exact words and the rest of your post was about other topics like run/bass balance and being conservative. There's no way anyone sensible could have interpreted it any other way.

I'm going to stop arguing with you about any topic as reasoning is impossible.

I would use ignore, but I'd like to have a laugh your future posts.

Dude. I've very patiently explained to you my views and explained the rationale for my opinions and you have chosen to be a bull in a china shop. I'm not going to be bullied off this site. I'm sure shouting down opinions that aren't all go pack go has worked for you in the past, but it ain't going to work on me.

 

[longtimefan]

Look at the context of the post I responded to and my entire response instead of quoting one statement and igoring the context.

All I saw was Jack thinking MM should get some credit for helping develop Rodgers..As he should...Per the articles I supplied, Rodgers college coach says there are somethings Rodgers was taught in the pros...Other article has Aaron himself stating he changed his mechanics. So that is clearly not the same

For that matter, I think Brett should get some credit as well in showing how NOT to do things.

I also watched every play he played in college and I assure you he is the same qb he was then.

It was pretty clear I wasn't saying he was exactly the same and was arguing at core he was the same.

I am sorry, but it is real clear you said he was the same now as he was then.....There isnt any real gray line here at all..

Even reading the other posts and the post you quoted, nothing can be taken out of context..

There are at least 3 of us that think your statement is incorrect, so that tells me that your "intention" was not conveyed properly..

If you wanted to say something different, then you should have stated it..

Sucks when you know what you meant but your words dont come out the way you wish..

Sometimes just admitting you made a mistake in your sentence ends any more clear confusions

 

[Oski]

All I saw was Jack thinking MM should get some credit for helping develop Rodgers..As he should...Per the articles I supplied, Rodgers college coach says there are somethings Rodgers was taught in the pros...Other article has Aaron himself stating he changed his mechanics. So that is clearly not the same

For that matter, I think Brett should get some credit as well in showing how NOT to do things.





I am sorry, but it is real clear you said he was the same now as he was then.....There isnt any real gray line here at all..

Even reading the other posts and the post you quoted, nothing can be taken out of context..

There are at least 3 of us that think your statement is incorrect, so that tells me that your "intention" was not conveyed properly..

If you wanted to say something different, then you should have stated it..

Sucks when you know what you meant but your words dont come out the way you wish..

Sometimes just admitting you made a mistake in your sentence ends any more clear confusions

I freely admitted it never occurred to me that anyone would interpret it that way. When you say your buddy is the same guy he was before he got married do people think you literally think he is exactly the same? or that he hasn't changed materially and his core beliefs are the same? In particular, if I was responding to my other buddy saying he is now completely different? Appeared to me that someone didn't like what I was saying and chose to argue semantics rather than what I was saying. But if many people feel differently, then so be it. Majority rules.

 

[longtimefan]

Look at the context of the post I responded to and my entire response instead of quoting one statement and igoring the context. It was pretty clear I wasn't saying he was exactly the same and was arguing at core he was the same. it's strange that you are all so literal minded. I guess i need to spell things out for you better. I'll remember that for the future.

You literally said he was the same

you have told someone to get common sense..Now implying I am to "slow" to comprehend what you mean.

When all we have is the LITERAL word on a forum, is it a surprise that we took your literal word as what you mean?

Face it, you got called out for something and not sure how to retract it

 

[Oski]

You literally said he was the same

you have told someone to get common sense..Now implying I am to "slow" to comprehend what you mean.

When all we have is the LITERAL word on a forum, is it a surprise that we took your literal word as what you mean?

Face it, you got called out for something and not sure how to retract it

I understand that implied meanings are not always easy to get on message boards. Once again, majority rules. Obviously I wasn't clear enough.

For future reference, if I wanted to say something was exactly the same, I would put the word exactly in the sentence. And I will make sure to use qualifiers in the future. Hopefully we can avoid future misunderstandings.

 

[NOMOFO]

I understand that implied meanings are not always easy to get on message boards. Once again, majority rules. Obviously I wasn't clear enough.

For future reference, if I wanted to say something was exactly the same, I would put the word exactly in the sentence. And I will make sure to use qualifiers in the future. Hopefully we can avoid future misunderstandings.

lol... OK... you got us...Aaron Rodgers is in fact "the same guy" that got drafted. It is not an imposter. It is in fact the real Aaron Rodgers. He is in fact the same human being that played at Cal.

For the record, and to make sure everyone is absolutely clear on this, all 1,824 players in the NFL are in fact, who they are.

We can debate a lot of different things when it comes to McCarthy. I'm not sure however why anyone would think McCarthy's success as a coach is nothing more than "luck" that he has Aaron Rodgers. There's no doubt in my mind that Aaron Rodgers is who he is in large part thanks to Mike McCarthy.

I just notice it is sooooooooooooo fricken hard for some people to actually be analytical when it comes to sports. It is so annoying.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even Rodgers seems annoyed by McCarthy calling running plays on first and second down every time.

Packers have thrown it on 51.4% of the time on first and second down this season.

him waiving the white flag in the redzone is a McCarthy staple. You have the qb with the lowest int redzone percentage in NFL history, yet you don't throw it on first down ever?

Since Rodgers became the starter the Packers have thrown it on 45.6% of the time on first down in the red zone.

You´re just making stuff up and repeating it over and over again doesn´t make you any more credible.

 

[Oski]

lol... OK... you got us...Aaron Rodgers is in fact "the same guy" that got drafted. It is not an imposter. It is in fact the real Aaron Rodgers. He is in fact the same human being that played at Cal.

For the record, and to make sure everyone is absolutely clear on this, all 1,824 players in the NFL are in fact, who they are.

We can debate a lot of different things when it comes to McCarthy. I'm not sure however why anyone would think McCarthy's success as a coach is nothing more than "luck" that he has Aaron Rodgers. There's no doubt in my mind that Aaron Rodgers is who he is in large part thanks to Mike McCarthy.

I just notice it is sooooooooooooo fricken hard for some people to actually be analytical when it comes to sports. It is so annoying.

Where's your "analysis" about how rodgers developed greatly under McCarthy? All I've gotten are him slightly tweaking his throwing motion. You want to claim I'm not analytical, yet your entire argument seems to be "what everyone knows."

 

[Oski]

Packers have thrown it on 51.4% of the time on first and second down this season.



Since Rodgers became the starter the Packers have thrown it on 45.6% of the time on first down in the red zone.

You´re just making stuff up and repeating it over and over again doesn´t make you any more credible.

Rodgers upset with the playcalling:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...on-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-have-heated-exchange

McCarthy admits he ran it too much:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/23/green-bay-packers-offense-aaron-rodgers-mike-mccarthy

Did I say we've run it too much in all of history? No. Can you still have a run pass balance and be running it too much? Yes! If running it isn't being effective. Given the problems with the running game you pointing out to be we've run it 50 percent despite running the ball poorly illustrates my point completely. He's terrible at adapting. Aaron said it himself.

 

[longtimefan]

Where's your "analysis" about how rodgers developed greatly under McCarthy? All I've gotten are him slightly tweaking his throwing motion. You want to claim I'm not analytical, yet your entire argument seems to be "what everyone knows."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/s...ackers-aaron-rodgers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Coach Mike McCarthy arrived in Rodgers’s second season, and he recognized the talent that spent Sundays holding clipboards. Since 1993, McCarthy has charted quarterbacks in five footwork drills that rate agility and movement. In his three backup seasons, Rodgers improved most in those areas, McCarthy said, to where he now ranks “at the top of all of them.”

In what McCarthy calls his Quarterback School, Rodgers concentrated on tuning his fine motor skills: hand-eye coordination, finger dexterity, mechanics. He also lowered where he held the ball for a smoother, more consistent motion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers upset with the playcalling:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...on-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-have-heated-exchange

McCarthy admits he ran it too much:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/23/green-bay-packers-offense-aaron-rodgers-mike-mccarthy

Did I say we've run it too much in all of history? No. Can you still have a run pass balance and be running it too much? Yes! If running it isn't being effective. Given the problems with the running game you pointing out to be we've run it 50 percent despite running the ball poorly illustrates my point completely. He's terrible at adapting. Aaron said it himself.

It´s strange you come up with the Cincinnati game from last season in which we ran for 182 yards and averaged more than six yards per carry to proof your point.