Why Didn't Rodgers Challenge Sherman?

I need some answers! These are pro athletes who thrive on beating the best. Boykin had to be steamed that he was merely a decoy; I believe Jordy was matched up against Sherman only on obvious run plays. Ask any DB and he will say that this makes their lives/game planning SO much easier. Whilst the strength of the Pack is #12's arm, Fatboy McCarthy chose to avoid passes outside the hashes? Something tells me that was his biggest issue with Lord Favre, not being able to "control" him! Why would MVP caliber #12 accept this? At some point he should have checked out of plays to at least move the chains. BTW, not running for that 1st down in 1st half was baffling! With a team like Seattle you have to be a GAMER. If us fans can see how badly Pack was overmatched, clearly #12 should have known that a win would be possible only with him "taking over!!" Sometimes he seems too thin-skinned and wants to avoid criticism so he avoids challenges. Say what you want, but that's one thing #4 excelled at; high risk high REWARD!!! Why didn't fatboy use Cobb like Harvin?? We all recall how Lord (Favre) showed Mercy (Percy) with the Vikes and how that led to Ws against superior DBs! I know we all know that fatboy is not the best at coaching in big games and it seems that this has trickled down and has led to #12 "settling" against better teams. He seems to be more of a frontrunner at times, rarely bringing Pack from behind (I believe it was Colin Cowherd who illuminated this for you people who are blinded by #12's overall numbers).

Thoughts? Because I don't pretend to be a genius; merely a concerned fan.

I just heard about Sherman's tweet; pretty much concurs with my question!!

Sherman went up to Rodgers after the game and asked "you avoided me didn't you?' #12 said "YUP!" smh! BIATCH...!!

WHOA..!

Cant believe none of you replied to this question of mine; it was one of the main topics of discussion for the sports talking heads post-game!!

I thought it was disappointing as well....but......Cobb has nothing on Driver, Jennings, or Nelson. I'm convinced he's a good player, but I'm not convinced he's elite...we will see its a long season. Either way, in the last 2 years we have lost Jennings, Driver, Jones, and Finley. I think we should realize that while Rodgers is a great player, I don't think he has great players around him anymore other than Nelson. Against Seattle thats not enough. Oh and Lacy was supposed to be the X factor...looked to me like he belonged more on the biggest loser than a football field. He looked like he was moving in slow motion compared to the speed of that Seattle defense. I remember one play he caught a pass and it took him like ten minutes to turn around and get going.

Basically, yeah I would have like them to attack Sherman, but the pieces around Rodgers don't match the talent on that Seattle defense. We will put up more points against lesser teams, but we needed a running game and a good defense to win that game....we had neither. Rodgers not attacking Sherman should not be our biggest concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infamous

I need some answers! These are pro athletes who thrive on beating the best. Boykin had to be steamed that he was merely a decoy; I believe Jordy was matched up against Sherman only on obvious run plays. Ask any DB and he will say that this makes their lives/game planning SO much easier. Whilst the strength of the Pack is #12's arm, Fatboy McCarthy chose to avoid passes outside the hashes? Something tells me that was his biggest issue with Lord Favre, not being able to "control" him! Why would MVP caliber #12 accept this? At some point he should have checked out of plays to at least move the chains. BTW, not running for that 1st down in 1st half was baffling! With a team like Seattle you have to be a GAMER. If us fans can see how badly Pack was overmatched, clearly #12 should have known that a win would be possible only with him "taking over!!" Sometimes he seems too thin-skinned and wants to avoid criticism so he avoids challenges. Say what you want, but that's one thing #4 excelled at; high risk high REWARD!!! Why didn't fatboy use Cobb like Harvin?? We all recall how Lord (Favre) showed Mercy (Percy) with the Vikes and how that led to Ws against superior DBs! I know we all know that fatboy is not the best at coaching in big games and it seems that this has trickled down and has led to #12 "settling" against better teams. He seems to be more of a frontrunner at times, rarely bringing Pack from behind (I believe it was Colin Cowherd who illuminated this for you people who are blinded by #12's overall numbers).

Thoughts? Because I don't pretend to be a genius; merely a concerned fan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infamous

WHOA..!

Cant believe none of you replied to this question of mine; it was one of the main topics of discussion for the sports talking heads post-game!!

---

I tend not to read thru blocks of text... break it up and make it readable, and I'll look at it; but if you're going to just throw out a block of letters, I'm not going to strain my eyes trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

As for the title of your thread - I would have challenged him first by running some screens behind him, and other receivers in the flat underneath his coverage.

The other thing I would have done, would have been to use our unused depth to make him run, and run, and run some more... go routes right up the sideline, with no intention of throwing to the receiver - the intent would be just make the guy run... tighten up those hamstrings, and go after him in the 2nd half.

I found it rather curious that Sherman only played on one side of the field. I doubt our DBs only work one side the field. Normally a team will put their #1 corner/safety on the opposition's #WR. Why was Sherman afraid to follow Jordy around and cover him?

I hope MM took notes and will go back to using Cobb like Seattle used Harvin.

Thursday night wasn't #12's best night but that defense can make Peyton Manning and Drew Brees look like Christian Ponder. I have no clue why he didn't run for the first down when he had the opportunity. It is apparent that you are no fan of Rodgers or MM so I'll just end my post here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugger

I found it rather curious that Sherman only played on one side of the field. I doubt our DBs only work one side the field. Normally a team will put their #1 corner/safety on the opposition's #WR. Why was Sherman afraid to follow Jordy around and cover him?

I hope MM took notes and will go back to using Cobb like Seattle used Harvin.

Thursday night wasn't #12's best night but that defense can make Peyton Manning and Drew Brees look like Christian Ponder. I have no clue why he didn't run for the first down when he had the opportunity. It is apparent that you are no fan of Rodgers or MM so I'll just end my post here.

---

In the Seahawks scheme Sherman only plays one side of the field. A lot of the reason people are critical of him being the #1 CB in the NFL is because he may "shut down" one side of the field, but he's doing that against #2/3 guys. Unlike, say, Revis Island where he blankets the #1 almost all game.

It made the job way too easy for the defense as their single high safety could just start rolling over to one side of the field.

Also, bumping your own post 3 times to fish for a reply?

Bad form. Pretty sure this topic has been rehased in the gameday and the studs/duds thread...

About Cobb, he has quickness, not real breakaway speed like Harvin or Melvin Gordon. The jet sweep might work, though.

As for the main question, avoiding Sherman or not? Hell yeah, you always go away from the other team's strength - and loud mouth that he is, Sherman is still damn good. My gripe is that McCarthy sold out to the "run first" crowd, and when he did pass, he got away from the Packers strength: throwing it down the field - and having that set up the run, not the other way around. We've faced good pass rushes before with worse offensive lines, and Rodgers used his mobility to get off passes down the field. Why was THAT avoided? I wouldn't give a damn if they picked on the opposite Corner almost 100% - Seattle invites that by not flipping their Corners. Good Point, though, about the single high Safety automatically rotating away from Sherman.

i'd guess his guy wasn't open. #3s don't get open against him very much i'd wager. :)

mm says they didn't avoid him and ar said they did. whatever the deal was i hope they learned something from it.

Another minor point on "flopping" corners or always having a guy play a side. When you always play the same side, it's less tiring. You get a break here and there when you have the skinny side of the field to cover. The other point to not flopping is consistency. Your mechanics are the same when you are always playing the left side or whatever.

There is no right or wrong to this question as it's debated at coaching clinics, etc, as to the superior method.

Simple answer, AR wasn't playing to win Thursday night. He was playing to not lose, by the time he started playing to win, it was to late. Kinda goes back to the Rodgers gambling problem thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rutnstrut

Simple answer, AR wasn't playing to win Thursday night. He was playing to not loose, by the time he started playing to win, it was to late. Kinda goes back to the Rodgers gambling problem thread.

---

Actually, that is the reverse of the gambling problem mentioned in the other thread. But carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Actually, that is the reverse of the gambling problem mentioned in the other thread. But carry on.

---

Wasn't that thread that he doesn't gamble enough or take enough chances? Isn't that the same as playing it too safe?

I tended to think the way things went was somewhat of an advantage to the Packers. Their #1CB covering your #3 WR should be very beneficial. It meant Cobb across the middle and Jordy on the other sideline had better chances, and for a while it looked like Jordy was going to have a big night, a few catches on a drive that resulted in a TD. That seemed to taper off, I couldn't quite sort out what happened, did they give the CB covering him help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KYPack

Another minor point on "flopping" corners or always having a guy play a side. When you always play the same side, it's less tiring. You get a break here and there when you have the skinny side of the field to cover. The other point to not flopping is consistency. Your mechanics are the same when you are always playing the left side or whatever.

There is no right or wrong to this question as it's debated at coaching clinics, etc, as to the superior method.

---

Yup. They made a big deal about it in GB when Harris started taking on the top receivers, regardless of side. Before that, GB had played left and right CBs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rutnstrut

Wasn't that thread that he doesn't gamble enough or take enough chances? Isn't that the same as playing it too safe?

---

Playing it too safe at the end of the game, yes. Your impression of his approach in the Seattle game was too cautious early.

Is it true that we NEVER threw in Sherman's direction at all Thursday night?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugger

Is it true that we NEVER threw in Sherman's direction at all Thursday night?

---

Yes. But I have a better question. Why on God's green earth would you waste throws to Boykin wrapped up with Sherman when Cobb and Nelson are getting nickel CBs and the new guy?

I would be more concerned if they never threw to that side of the field period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Yes. But I have a better question. Why on God's green earth would you waste throws to Boykin wrapped up with Sherman when Cobb and Nelson are getting nickel CBs and the new guy?

I would be more concerned if they never threw to that side of the field period.

---

My thought exactly. I would gladly have my #3 WR covered by the other teams #1. That should open everyone else up. I think part of the problem was they need to go to the TE even more.

Hell, the O would move the ball pretty well but had long fields all night. After a couple of first downs we would still be punting from our 35 and Mastay had some bad punts and couldn't flip the field position battle.

I just checked the box score. The O never went 3 and out all night. They just couldn't sustain long drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThunderDan

I just checked the box score. The O never went 3 and out all night. They just couldn't sustain long drives.

---

I wonder if that is related to the 4th Quarter comeback question. Someone pointed out McCarthy lamenting he did not get to his big shot plays due to game circumstance and down and distance.

If you take the Packers big play away (either coverage or pass rush) they can struggle launching 12 play scoring drives. While they have them (and last year might have had more with Lacy and a hurt Rodgers than typical) I would bet its not as common as some other dominant offenses.

If McCarthy wants to run 65-70 plays a game you need some longer drives. But I think the O is built around longer plays not 4 yards a play and 6 first downs on the way to scoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThunderDan

If McCarthy wants to run 65-70 plays a game you need some longer drives. But I think the O is built around longer plays not 4 yards a play and 6 first downs on the way to scoring.

---

It would help also if your D stopped yielding first downs on penalties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rutnstrut

Simplistic answer, AR wasn't playing to win Thursday night. He was playing to not lose, by the time he started playing to win, it was to late. Kinda goes back to the Rodgers gambling problem thread.

---

And Rodgers is in cahoots with MM who doesn't want win because he isn't responsible to an owner and TT who is too arrogant to admit a mistake with his draft picks.

Im watching SD v Seattle and Rivers is challenging the ENTIRE defense and looking awfully good...he threw at Sherman 3 times in the 1st half and completed all 3!!

His WR Allen is looking impressive v Sherman and the play calling has been not only great but exciting as well!!

Rivers was BALLN! made sherman look pedestrian! Hopefully in the NFCCG ScareRon Rodgers will make amends for week one foolishness

Rivers is a very ballsy QB, he doesn't back down from anyone. Which at times can be a detriment, but imo it has more upside than down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infamous

Im watching SD v Seattle and Rivers is challenging the ENTIRE defense and looking awfully good...he threw at Sherman 3 times in the 1st half and completed all 3!!

His WR Allen is looking impressive v Sherman and the play calling has been not only great but exciting as well!!

---

Sittin' pretty ;)

Stefanie Loh ‏@StefanieLoh 1h
Chargers' Keenan @Keenan13Allen Allen on Richard Sherman: "He's just a normal guy. We're gonna go @ him. He's not really a shut down corner"

I'm sure Sherman just needs to adjust his adderall dosage and everything will be all right.

The most exposed player on that defense last night was Chancellor not Sherman. They took their shots at Sherman but in the end it was for what? 54 yards?

Kam Chancellor will have nightmares about Antonio Gates this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3irty1

The most exposed player on that defense last night was Chancellor not Sherman. They took their shots at Sherman but in the end it was for what? 54 yards?

Kam Chancellor will have nightmares about Antonio Gates this week.

---

Very nice breakdown by Matt Bowen here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...for-nfl-week-2

Funny, but the "exposed" Sherman doesn't feature in this TD.

Manning is challenging Sherman as well, with success!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infamous

Manning is challenging Sherman as well, with success!!

---

It's clearly paying off for the Broncos.

mannings last toss was against Sherman

no timeouts scored in 40-plus seconds