"experts" comment on Packers O and what wrong

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...364763641.html

[mraynrand]

"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.

[pbmax]

"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.

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.

The more I think about it, the more I think Defenses figured out Rodgers offense.

Running was great. What was best was pass protection.

[mraynrand]

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.

The more I think about it, the more I think Defenses figured out Rodgers offense.

Running was great. What was best was pass protection.

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.

[Patler]

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.

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.

[pbmax]

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.

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

The more I think about it, the more I think Defenses figured out Rodgers offense.

Running was great. What was best was pass protection.

I strongly suggest it's the O Line. Rodgers isn't scrambling because he likes it; He's running for his life - and to make the play succeed. The receivers also are simply doing what they have to do. It's an exaggeration to say they aren't running patterns at all, but it's certainly true that by the time they finish the route as planned, 8 or 9 times out of 10, Rodgers is in no position to get them the ball. You know, it hasn't been that much different for quite a few years with this O Line. The bulk of the problems began when Denver figured out how to jam up the receivers and/or how to keep Rodgers bottled up instead of escaping the pocket.

All of that aside, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope in the second half against Washington. Our O Line wasn't good by any stretch, but they were just a little less bad. Is that glimmer of hope is enough to beat Arizona? I guess we'll find out. I don't think the Cardinals are as good as they played against us last time, and we are very likely better. It's gonna be an uphill battle, though.

[Carolina_Packer]

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!

[Patler]

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!

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.

[Carolina_Packer]

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.

The point is hoping that TT and staff can draft a more impactful player, relative to where they are being picked in the draft. Washington got Jordan Reed, we got Richard Rodgers, at roughly the same spot (albeit a year apart). Discounting future injuries, I'd say Jordan Reed has a higher upside than Richard Rodgers. It's not really even about Jordan Reed. It's about wanting the team to go after guys like Jordan Reed vs. guys like Richard Rodgers. My comment has nothing to do with the year, who we had on the roster at the time. It's simply that TT may have over-valued the potential of Rodgers, compared with a guy like Jordan Reed. In his third year next year, perhaps Richard Rodgers might jump up and become as impactful as Jordan Reed. I hope so, but will he suddenly become more than his measurable when he was first evaluated?

[woodbuck27]

The point is hoping that TT and staff can draft a more impactful player, relative to where they are being picked in the draft. Washington got Jordan Reed, we got Richard Rodgers, at roughly the same spot (albeit a year apart). Discounting future injuries, I'd say Jordan Reed has a higher upside than Richard Rodgers. It's not really even about Jordan Reed. It's about wanting the team to go after guys like Jordan Reed vs. guys like Richard Rodgers. My comment has nothing to do with the year, who we had on the roster at the time. It's simply that TT may have over-valued the potential of Rodgers, compared with a guy like Jordan Reed. In his third year next year, perhaps Richard Rodgers might jump up and become as impactful as Jordan Reed. I hope so, but will he suddenly become more than his measurable when he was first evaluated?

Richard Rodgers can jump and he has adequate hands. Has he been a BIG production TE at the College level? I wouldn't say from what I read that he has so at the NFL level tjhat 's not likely tio change setting aside more targets that will be countered by opposing 'D's \ game planning to easily take that away from R. R. as he has poor feet....he's .............slow

I expect every member of this forum would be very pleased if Jordan Reed came to us in a trade with Washington...RR and a pick for JR. JR would give the Packer 'O' the over the middle strong TE threat, we so badly have wished for throughout the Aaron Rodgers Era. We had a decent one but he needed to grow and then the injuries. The knee injury in 2010 that cost the Packers JerMichael Finley for all but the start of that season. Next up ...the unfortunate career ending injury to NO. 88.

TT's response was Richard Rodgers.....why? What did TT see that got him so excited to draft him. I feel that TT's Scouting Dept. could do a better job if they let go of this 'Diamond in the Rough. dream. The best talent is recruited by the Upper Level college's to drive their football program. A lot of this stuff is fundamental and common sense.

Travel ......to observe a position candidate (Maybe work him out as the rules apply?, Interview 'that GUY'. . . . for 'a Look into his Head, Heart and Soul. Don't fall in Love with a position candidate. REALLY !? TT 'always takes the best available talent available according to his Draft Board...Sure.

Talent comes with a word.

That word is consistency.

Jordan Reed is a solid TE and growing at the NFL level. I've enjoyed, when I can see him .....watching him. I watch the style of play and production of potential impact players at any position. I'm a Pro Pickem' guy so I need to be aware of a lot of stuff.

[Harlan Huckleby]

opposing 'D's \ game planning to easily take that away from R. R. as he has poor feet....he's .............slow

DRod does have some excellent attributes - he's athletic in sense of good body control and pass catching. I can see why he was drafted high. If the blocking had come around, he'd be a good player, although needing a speedy compliment on TE roster.

I suppose I'm giving a "doesn't sweat much for a fat girl" compliment.

[mraynrand]

Talent comes with a word.

That word is consistency.

I know some very untalented people who are consistently untalented. *ahem*

[Bretsky]

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.

Is he suggesting Reed was very worthy of being picked there........and RR was not ?

[Carolina_Packer]

Is he suggesting Reed was very worthy of being picked there........and RR was not ?

Let me amend my comment to say I hope Richard Rodgers in his third year has the same development/production jump that Jordan Reed had this year (his third year).

I get that you can only pick the guys that are available in a given draft. It's more about always hoping that our front office/scouting staff can identify and choose a Jordan Reed type player over a Richard Rodgers type player. No knock on Rodgers individually. Patler pointed out his production being near Finley's from a receptions standpoint, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Rodgers is not light years behind Reed, he's just never going to be as athletically gifted. We all want what is best for Pack, and for our front office to always make the best possible decisions, and hopefully as the picks fall, have the best luck with who is available to them in a given year.

[mraynrand]

It's more about always hoping that our front office/scouting staff can identify and choose a Jordan Reed type player over a Richard Rodgers type player.

I think they can. They just can't always do it in the same year that they have to use the pick on someone else. Of course, sometimes they just miss.

[Maxie the Taxi]

^LOL. Good one, Patler. Putting "elusive", "dynamic" and DickRod in the same post. Never saw that before.

[Patler]

^LOL. Good one, Patler. Putting "elusive", "dynamic" and DickRod in the same post. Never saw that before.

Well, not exactly. I never wrote "DickRod" !

[pbmax]

^ I think the progression has taken a hit in this version of the offense, absolutely.

[pbmax]

Did he have any drops yesterday? I don't remember.