LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
"He told me, 'The wide receivers are just running to spots and they expect the quarterback to scramble and they don't get the ball out on time,'" the personnel man said. "I watched it and he was right. They run and they stop and then they run around and don't really run routes. I don't know if that's a philosophy or what. I don't know what you call it."
Many of us here have observed the same thing.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Its the scramble drill offense. They expect the ball to go to the receiver Rodgers identifies in pre-snap. If because of Rodgers malfunction or O line malfunction (or poor receiver route) that isn't open, then he needs time to reset. And that hadn't been happening for quite a while.Originally Posted by mraynrand
The more I think about it, the more I think Defenses figured out Rodgers offense.
Running was great. What was best was pass protection.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
As has been said previously, it's always a combo of things. From the bye on this year, with few exceptions, Rodgers could even have time, but no open receivers, and then have to do scramble drill.
The defenses would clamp down on the perimeter, bracket he middle and keep two high safeties. What they needed to do is establish the run to get the opposing defenses to move a safety up for run support. The only game I can recall where running the ball well did not help the offensive production (at home against the Bears).
Having a vertical threat with Jordy also helped commit the attention to one of those safeties. The more I think about it, the more I think I want the Packers to commit to LT, even if Bach comes back healthy. Competition is always good, and quality depth is too. Tretter did a great job, save for the safety, but he's playing out of position, and I guess so is Walker and Barclay. That's a really important position, and if Bach gets beat out, he's still young enough to switch positions, or be depth.
They get Jordy and Monty back, they likely will draft a WR, and possibly some college free agents. Will they consider a vet free agent WR? I hope so.
TE is obviously a glaring need. Jordan Reed got picked at #85 in 2013. Richard Rodgers was picked at #98 in 2014. Would you say talent-wise they are only 14 picks apart? Both Richard Rodgers and Jordan Reed shuffled positions in college, and had some questions coming out of college in terms of where they fit. Does anyone still question where Jordan Reed fits? A year before Rodgers, but roughly drafted in the same slot. Just sayin' TT!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I don't get the point of this paragraph. Are you suggesting TT should have drafted Reed in 2013? Someone other than Rodgers in 2014? In 2013, they still had Finley for the first 6 games. To get Reed, the Packers would have had to take him instead of Lacy in the second round. He was already gone by the Packers pick in the third, which they traded. In 2014 there was a run on TEs ealy in the draft. Ebron was gone before the Packers took HHCD, and three others went in the second before GB took Adams. Green Bay could have taken any of those three in the first instead of HHCD, or could have taken Fiedorowicz in the second instead of Adams. When GB took Rodgers, they could have had Gilmore, who went to the Ravens on the very next pick. After that, no TEs were taken until the 5th and 7th rounds. It was reported the Packers had interest in many of the TEs, but with the rush on TEs early in the 2nd round, there wasn't much left to pick from for the Packers. Rodgers was the 6th TE taken.
I'm not suggesting Rodgers will ever be the elusive target Reed is. It doesn't appear that he will. On the other hand, in his second year, Reed had 50 receptions for 465 yards. Rodgers in his second year had 58 for 510. Finley exceeded 58 receptions just once, in 2012 with 61. Again, I'm not suggesting that Rodgers will ever be the dynamic type of receiver that Finley was, I don't see that ever happening. But I'm not yet sure where and how Rodgers will ultimately fit in next year as a 3rd year player and thereafter. Last year he averaged 11.3 yards/rec. This year, the entire passing offense is way down in average,not just Rodgers. Basically, Rodgers will get little more than the yards the throw covers, but he seems to get open somewhat and catches most of the ones he should. It would be nice if he had the elusiveness of some others, but he doesn't. He can still be serviceable, however.
^LOL. Good one, Patler. Putting "elusive", "dynamic" and DickRod in the same post. Never saw that before.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
This sounds about right. And there are receiver/route combinations that seem like they are not at all designed to be thrown to or thrown to productively. R. Rodgers to the flat is a lose from the word go. I suspect that route is typically run to draw coverage, but I don't think defenses respect it much.
If what you're saying is true, there is no 'progression' as we typically understand it. Rodgers looks at the coverage, IDs his target, and if that guy is taken away, scramble. If the pass pro is poor, the scramble is lost too. And with receivers Rodgers doesn't 'trust' the scramble breaks down too, because he's gonna have tunnel vision on Jones and maybe Cobb.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
^ I think the progression has taken a hit in this version of the offense, absolutely.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
That is where the loss of Montgomery hurts. He was showing signs (brief as they were) of being able to get open on a route, give AR a target when free lancing and catch when thrown too. That would have built AR's trust, which already seemed to be there.
Well, not exactly. I never wrote "DickRod" !
Abby can do this as well. He ran a slant for the 2 point conversion. Not the biggest guy and he was in the slot, but somehow he shook his defender and put him on his back.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I'm still not on his bandwagon. Too many drops for the limited opportunities he has had, and I hold my breath every time he is tackled. I suspect one or the other will limit his appearances the remainder of the Packers' playoff games; unless Adams is out.
Did he have any drops yesterday? I don't remember.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
yeah, the one receiver screen
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Abby juked the guy out of his shoes with a classic shake and bake. A thing of beauty.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
Oh yeah, that was non-good. Don't think of him having poor hands though.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
He has had several in just the recent games, and seemed to get benched by MM after one, much likes Starks after his last fumble. That is why I said drops or injury might limit his opportunities.
I just remember the one deep that bounced off his hands down the sideline a couple of game ago. If bad hands were enough to merit the bench, then Adams would be glued to the pine.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Except there is no one else to replace Adams now, and Adams had a solid 2014 to gain some tolerance. Neither Abrederis nor Janis has that, yet.
Abrederis has had several others that seemed catchable. The idea of him being benched after the previous one isn't mine, it came from one of the writers who seemed to think it was as clear as Starks being benched for the fumble.
I hear what everybody is saying, but MM has to play what he has been dealt. Continuing to play adams when he has been sooo inconsistent, seems to be an exercise in futility. Is abby the answer? Is Janis the answer? I have no clue, but u would think MM would ride those ponies until one or the other was as inconsistent as adams.
Enough cliches for u? U like that?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote