Aaron Rodgers now..

[Chevelle2]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nothing can be said. He is our future, and the future is bright.

[Kiwon]

Haters discuss.

Can fans discuss too?

Rodgers is on his way to elite status among his peers.

Manning has been playing since his rookie season. He came into the league ready to start. A-Rod had to wait awhile and, of course, was injured during two seasons even as a backup.

He's showing everyone that he was the quality QB that most anticipated. It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

[PlantPage55]

It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

The funny thing is that so many teams that passed on Aaron Rodgers DID need a QB. Several of them really needed one and a few others could have used one before we ever needed him. Sure, these teams still had other needs that they were attempting to take care of, but the QB is the most important player.

Teams like Detroit and Cleveland, who consistently passed on drafting QBs high until very recently, are great examples of teams that should be kicking themselves. Might Aaron have failed with those teams?

Perhaps. But he has elite skills that I don't think most QBs possess. Guys like Brady Quinn and even Matt Stafford.

[Waldo]

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

I thought that they became official at 500 completions.

[Kiwon]

It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

The funny thing is that so many teams that passed on Aaron Rodgers DID need a QB. Several of them really needed one and a few others could have used one before we ever needed him. Sure, these teams still had other needs that they were attempting to take care of, but the QB is the most important player.

Teams like Detroit and Cleveland, who consistently passed on drafting QBs high until very recently, are great examples of teams that should be kicking themselves. Might Aaron have failed with those teams?

Perhaps. But he has elite skills that I don't think most QBs possess. Guys like Brady Quinn and even Matt Stafford.

Detroit needed WRs. Like the Thanksgiving Day game, it should be standard for the Lions to draft a WR with its first pick. :wink:

[retailguy]

It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

The funny thing is that so many teams that passed on Aaron Rodgers DID need a QB. Several of them really needed one and a few others could have used one before we ever needed him. Sure, these teams still had other needs that they were attempting to take care of, but the QB is the most important player.

Teams like Detroit and Cleveland, who consistently passed on drafting QBs high until very recently, are great examples of teams that should be kicking themselves. Might Aaron have failed with those teams?

Perhaps. But he has elite skills that I don't think most QBs possess. Guys like Brady Quinn and even Matt Stafford.

I think Rodgers would have failed with those teams. No way was the guy ready to play his first season. Probably wasn't ready to play his second season either, though he was much better.

Aaron is THE example for what can happen with several years of seasoning. That three years he spent behind Favre was the best time he could have spent. He has developed into a really, really good QB. We're lucky to have him.

[sheepshead]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nice list of average QB's huh Partial?

[bobblehead]

It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

The funny thing is that so many teams that passed on Aaron Rodgers DID need a QB. Several of them really needed one and a few others could have used one before we ever needed him. Sure, these teams still had other needs that they were attempting to take care of, but the QB is the most important player.

Teams like Detroit and Cleveland, who consistently passed on drafting QBs high until very recently, are great examples of teams that should be kicking themselves. Might Aaron have failed with those teams?

Perhaps. But he has elite skills that I don't think most QBs possess. Guys like Brady Quinn and even Matt Stafford.

I think Rodgers would have failed with those teams. No way was the guy ready to play his first season. Probably wasn't ready to play his second season either, though he was much better.

Aaron is THE example for what can happen with several years of seasoning. That three years he spent behind Favre was the best time he could have spent. He has developed into a really, really good QB. We're lucky to have him.

I agree, letting a QB slowly adjust to the speed of the pro game is definately an advantage. MM took the time in the offseason to let him learn the right way to watch film and breakdown a D, he learned the O the way it was meant to be run instead of running for his life playground style. I can't believe more teams don't do this with young QB's.

[Chevelle2]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nice list of average QB's huh Partial?

LOL @ Partial avoiding this thread like the plague.

[Jimx29]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nothing can be said. He is our future, and the future is bright.Until he goes down with a broken "X" since his pocket presence still sucks and 50-60 sacks is gonna catch up to him/us before you know it

[PackerTimer]

It is the Packers great fortune that other teams did not need a QB on draft day in 2005.

The funny thing is that so many teams that passed on Aaron Rodgers DID need a QB. Several of them really needed one and a few others could have used one before we ever needed him. Sure, these teams still had other needs that they were attempting to take care of, but the QB is the most important player.

Teams like Detroit and Cleveland, who consistently passed on drafting QBs high until very recently, are great examples of teams that should be kicking themselves. Might Aaron have failed with those teams?

Perhaps. But he has elite skills that I don't think most QBs possess. Guys like Brady Quinn and even Matt Stafford.

I think Rodgers would have failed with those teams. No way was the guy ready to play his first season. Probably wasn't ready to play his second season either, though he was much better.

Aaron is THE example for what can happen with several years of seasoning. That three years he spent behind Favre was the best time he could have spent. He has developed into a really, really good QB. We're lucky to have him.

I completely agree. I don't think ARod would be the QB he is today if he had gone to one of those teams and been put into a situation where he was starting from day one. His time spent waiting has been invaluable to him.

[Bretsky]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nice list of average QB's huh Partial?

LOL @ Partial avoiding this thread like the plague.


More Bush League antics in calling out other posters not in this thread

Everybody is wrong at times; it's a good thing most prefer to take the Barry Sanders route

[digitaldean]

Thankful the Packers have a long layoff till the next game.

Even against the Kitties, A-Rod looked pretty beat up after the game.

Amazing the abuse that kid has taken behind that line this year.

[Bossman641]

Very very impressive numbers from Rodgers. I could not be happier with our QB situation.

BTW, how about that throw to Driver? 70 yard toss!! :shock:

[Partial]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nice list of average QB's huh Partial?

LOL @ Partial avoiding this thread like the plague.

Why? It's a holiday. I was out living life away from my comp. Statistical anomaly. Few would say he is anywhere near the quality of player as Peyton or Steve Young. Would you? What has he done to show he is?

QB rating is a measure of efficiency and one way to judge a QB. It certainly has some merit, but its not the end all be all in the discussion of a quality quarterback. Rodgers is not a gun slinger. He's careful with the football but also doesn't have nearly as many game changing plays (for better or worse). Very tough to compare him to an all-time winner like Favre(who is clearly the better QB even in the twilight of his career) using these stats because they play different games.

Favre's game is to make a lot of plays. Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

[Waldo]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nice list of average QB's huh Partial?

LOL @ Partial avoiding this thread like the plague.

Why? It's a holiday. I was out living life away from my comp. Statistical anomaly. Few would say he is anywhere near the quality of player as Peyton or Steve Young. Would you? What has he done to show he is?

QB rating is a measure of efficiency and one way to judge a QB. It certainly has some merit, but its not the end all be all in the discussion of a quality quarterback. Rodgers is not a gun slinger. He's careful with the football but also doesn't have nearly as many game changing plays (for better or worse). Very tough to compare him to an all-time winner like Favre(who is clearly the better QB even in the twilight of his career) using these stats because they play different games.

Favre's game is to make a lot of plays. Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

Really?

He's #40 all time in TD% for his career. 5 active players are ahead of him, Romo, P. Manning, Rivers, Brady, and Big Ben. Farve and Warner are tied with Rodgers at #40 with 5.1%. He is currently tied for #1 in the number of TD's thrown this season. Are TD's game changing plays?

He's #2 this season in number of 40+ passes and #3 in 20+ passes. Are those game changing plays?

He leads the NFL in rushing yds by a QB, and leads the NFL in rushing TD's by a QB. Are those game changing plays?

It sucks that he isn't as good as Vince Young. We shoulda traded up when we had the chance.

Not to mention, Rodgers is currently #1 all time at career int % (min 500 completions). No QB ever has been more careful with the ball during his career than Aaron.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 51 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 454 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career. Second QB to have over 4000 yards in his first year as a starter (Kurt Warner was the first). He's on pace for 4561 yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions--with 359 rushing yards and 4-5 rushing TDs. Playmaker.

[Partial]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He's on pace for 4500+ passing yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions in his second year as a starter. Just glad we have him for a long time.

[pbmax]

Aaron is THE example for what can happen with several years of seasoning. That three years he spent behind Favre was the best time he could have spent. He has developed into a really, really good QB. We're lucky to have him.\
Exactly. It is the model anyone should follow for a QB that has not had mutiple years of starts in D1. Perfect for QBs drafter mid 1st and lower.

[pbmax]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.
Not exactly. Look at the number of deep completions. His YPA is insane. YAC does help, but you need to complete them and you need to have the right route. No one gets a ton of YAC running a comeback route. It means he is hitting a moving target well.

[ThunderDan]

Exactly pb. A throw in stride with the WR is the catch that brings a lot of YAC. Balls misplaced usually cause the WR to stop and get tackled on completion.

[packers11]

Partial will never let this fking argument up. I am so sick of watching this shit in every fking Rodgers thread..

K ...

Tom Brady sucks (moss-welker make him) Look at the "stats" he never threw over 30 td's before they came... His surrounding cast makes him ... :roll:

Brees sucks. 8-8 last year with all those weapons?! Are you kidding me, that explosive offense and you cannot get past 8-8, your just a product of the system... :roll:

Partial, I never bash posters, and i've let all your rambling pass by me, but man, you just are going way to far with this shit...

/ Rant off

[Waldo]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.
Not exactly. Look at the number of deep completions. His YPA is insane. YAC does help, but you need to complete them and you need to have the right route. No one gets a ton of YAC running a comeback route. It means he is hitting a moving target well.

YAC Stats (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231)

[Freak Out]

It's amazing the the job he has done this year even with the crap OL play he's had. Hopefully the Pack keeps him under contract for a long time.

That doesn't change the fact that Chevelle2 is a pot stirring bitch.

[pbmax]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.
Not exactly. Look at the number of deep completions. His YPA is insane. YAC does help, but you need to complete them and you need to have the right route. No one gets a ton of YAC running a comeback route. It means he is hitting a moving target well.

YAC Stats (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231)

Long Completions (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?year=&type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=119)

Also, one thing to Partial's credit. A couple of statistical analyses I have read have found little correlation of YAC to the QB. From a statistical standpoint, its seems to be the receivers. I will try to find that study online. I think it was at Advanced Football Stats.

[Waldo]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.
Not exactly. Look at the number of deep completions. His YPA is insane. YAC does help, but you need to complete them and you need to have the right route. No one gets a ton of YAC running a comeback route. It means he is hitting a moving target well.

YAC Stats (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231)

Long Completions (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?year=&type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=119)

Also, one thing to Partial's credit. A couple of statistical analyses I have read have found little correlation of YAC to the QB. From a statistical standpoint, its seems to be the receivers. I will try to find that study online. I think it was at Advanced Football Stats.

I've been thinking about doing a similar look and trying to prove their stats wrong.

It is easy to trash Football Outsiders stat based analysis, it has been done many times by people better with stats. They are good at telling us what happened and the odds of things occurring in the future. Their ability to predict is woeful and their stat based special articles are typically pitiful.

Cold Hard Football facts might be the one that you are talking about. They notably despise Favre and will point out all stats that make him look shitty. This is one of them.

2007-2008-2009 in GB though has shown that QB/play caller seems to have a great deal to do with YAC. While it may be true that the strongest YAC correlation follows the receiver, and not the QB, I think that the analysis may be a bit shallow, and that a different look may yield a stronger result showing that it isn't the WR, that in fact play caller and QB have the biggest role. Certain routes lend themselves to YAC, certain ones don't, no matter who the receiver. Out routes and comebacks just don't generate YAC like sluggos and slants.

[Freak Out]

Rodgers would probably have even better numbers if we didn't have a fucking spaz calling plays. :)

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think there was a stat that showed the Packers ranked in the bottom half in YAC last year--which pointed to Rodgers yards coming more by longer throws. Rodgers has played some dink and dunk games, but he looks for the big play more than a vast majority of QBs. In fact, he's been criticized for not playing more conservatively (e.g. taking too many sacks trying to let longer routes develop).

[BallHawk]

Very tough to compare him to an all-time winner like Favre(who is clearly the better QB even in the twilight of his career)

Clearly? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a majority of NFL scouts who think that Favre is a better QB than Rodgers, yet alone clearly better than Rodgers. Favre is doing a fantastic job in managing the team he has around him. So is Rodgers. They're 1 and 3 in terms of QB rating. That isn't clearly better. That's arguable, at best.

[Cheesehead Craig]

He's on pace for 4500+ passing yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions in his second year as a starter. Just glad we have him for a long time.
He's a top 5 NFL QB now and he's got room to improve. We are really blessed to have him at QB.

[Scott Campbell]

Few would say he is anywhere near the quality of player as Peyton or Steve Young. Would you?


His play is beginning to make it a legitimate topic of discussion.

[Brandon494]

He's on pace for 4500+ passing yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions in his second year as a starter. Just glad we have him for a long time.
He's a top 5 NFL QB now and he's got room to improve. We are really blessed to have him at QB.

Yea and its a shame that some fans got so spoiled from having Favre at QB that they can't see how lucky we are to have Rodgers.

[bobblehead]

Has the highest career QB rating of all time.

Although the stat is not official, because QB stats are only official with at least 1500 attempts.

Rodgers: 96.9
Young: 96.8
Peyton: 95.2

Haters discuss.

Nothing can be said. He is our future, and the future is bright.Until he goes down with a broken "X" since his pocket presence still sucks and 50-60 sacks is gonna catch up to him/us before you know it

we once had a young QB who's pocket presence sucked so bad he ended up addicted to painkillers...his future turned out to be bright.

[bobblehead]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.

Anyone want to do the research and compare YAC yards to BF's this season? And besides, leading a reciever properly leads to YAC, so part of it belongs to the QB.

What the hell, I did it myself:




NFL ranking Team YAC Pct. of total yards
6 Detroit 744 49.5
7 Minnesota 982 48.9
21 Chicago 718 42.7
29 Green Bay 712 35.5
Source: ESPN's Stats & Information

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/11318/air-and-space-talkin-yac-in-the-nfc-north


A couple of numerical parameters to keep in mind: St. Louis has the NFL’s highest YAC percentage at 53.8. Tampa Bay has the lowest at 34 percent, and the NFL’s median YAC is Buffalo at 44.7 percent.

As you can see, Minnesota by far has more total yards after the catch. The other three division teams have roughly the same total, but the Lions have the highest percentage relative to their total yardage.

LOL, according to you partial, BF isn't playing so well this season, he is merely living off his recievers making plays. but alternatly following your logic ARod is a complete stud monster. He is by far the best QB in the NFL as his YPA is tops and his recievers helping him out with YAC is 29th as a % of total yards. Sometimes you should research before accidently making everyones argument for them.

[PlantPage55]

As you can see, Minnesota by far has more total yards after the catch. The other three division teams have roughly the same total, but the Lions have the highest percentage relative to their total yardage.

LOL, according to you partial, BF isn't playing so well this season, he is merely living off his recievers making plays. but alternatly following your logic ARod is a complete stud monster. He is by far the best QB in the NFL as his YPA is tops and his recievers helping him out with YAC is 29th as a % of total yards. Sometimes you should research before accidently making everyones argument for them.

Ah, delicious, delicious research.

I'm going to save a tab of this post so I can read it again with my morning coffee and nod in approval.

[The Shadow]

The biggest difference I've seen is I no longer get so angst-ridden when it's crunch time in a game. I just don't see Rodgers making the continual bone-head decisions that wind up losing games.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Few would say he is anywhere near the quality of player as Peyton or Steve Young. Would you?


His play is beginning to make it a legitimate topic of discussion.

Rodgers stats actually mirrored Peyton's last year. Or was it Peyton's that mirrored Rodgers? And this is all coming from a Tennessee homer! Peyton is the best QB in the league right now, and maybe one of the best to ever play the game. Check the stats for yourself though:

Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int

2008 Peyton 371 555 66.8 4,002 7.2 27 12

2008 Rodgers 341 536 63.6 4,038 7.5 28 13 Also add 200 rush yds 4 tds

2009 Peyton 271 388 69.8 3,171 8.2 21 9

2009 Rodgers 249 380 65.5 3,136 8.3 22 5 Add 250 yds and 3 rush tds

2009 Rodgers is with one more game played currently.

He's consistently looked like Peyton the first two years. That exceeds any of my wildest expectations when Rodgers played his first game for the Green and Gold. Keep your gunslinger Partial. I want a Manning clone.


edit: I'm having trouble getting the listings to line up with the stats, but it's still very readable.

[woodbuck27]

Very tough to compare him to an all-time winner like Favre(who is clearly the better QB even in the twilight of his career)

Clearly? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a majority of NFL scouts who think that Favre is a better QB than Rodgers, yet alone clearly better than Rodgers. Favre is doing a fantastic job in managing the team he has around him. So is Rodgers. They're 1 and 3 in terms of QB rating. That isn't clearly better. That's arguable, at best.

I'd then argue that this season Brett Favre is clearly more efficient at the QB position than Aaron Rodgers. Re-call how they made out head-head? Favre has been the QB of the week in the FedEx 4 times to date Vs Rodgers zero. Given that and the fact that the fans know. At the end of this season I'd bet that Favre gets more votes for MVP than Aaron Rodgers.

Not to take anything away from Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers has played very well given his OL's performance. I loved seeing the satisfied look on his face near the end of the Lions game on Thanksgiving day. Big cheers to Charles Woodson and Donald Driver as well.

GO PACKERS!

[PlantPage55]

I'd then argue that this season Brett Favre is clearly more efficient at the QB position than Aaron Rodgers. Re-call how they made out head-head? Favre has been the QB of the week in the FedEx 4 times to date Vs Rodgers zero. Given that and the fact that the fans know. At the end of this season I'd bet that Favre gets more votes for MVP than Aaron Rodgers.

Not to take anything away from Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers has played very well given his OL's performance. I loved seeing the satisfied look on his face near the end of the Lions game on Thanksgiving day. Big cheers to Charles Woodson and Donald Driver as well.

GO PACKERS!

I don't have a problem with your post, other than the bolded. I don't trust the moronic general collective of NFL fans as far as I can collectively throw them. Which is to say at all.

[woodbuck27]

I'd then argue that this season Brett Favre is clearly more efficient at the QB position than Aaron Rodgers. Re-call how they made out head-head? Favre has been the QB of the week in the FedEx 4 times to date Vs Rodgers zero. Given that and the fact that the fans know. At the end of this season I'd bet that Favre gets more votes for MVP than Aaron Rodgers.

Not to take anything away from Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers has played very well given his OL's performance. I loved seeing the satisfied look on his face near the end of the Lions game on Thanksgiving day. Big cheers to Charles Woodson and Donald Driver as well.

GO PACKERS!

I don't have a problem with your post, other than the bolded. I don't trust the moronic general collective of NFL fans as far as I can collectively throw them. Which is to say at all.

OK. Edit that to:

" some fans know ". :D

[Bossman641]

Anyone want to do the research and compare YAC yards to BF's this season? And besides, leading a reciever properly leads to YAC, so part of it belongs to the QB.

What the hell, I did it myself:




NFL ranking Team YAC Pct. of total yards
6 Detroit 744 49.5
7 Minnesota 982 48.9
21 Chicago 718 42.7
29 Green Bay 712 35.5
Source: ESPN's Stats & Information

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/11318/air-and-space-talkin-yac-in-the-nfc-north


A couple of numerical parameters to keep in mind: St. Louis has the NFL’s highest YAC percentage at 53.8. Tampa Bay has the lowest at 34 percent, and the NFL’s median YAC is Buffalo at 44.7 percent.

As you can see, Minnesota by far has more total yards after the catch. The other three division teams have roughly the same total, but the Lions have the highest percentage relative to their total yardage.

LOL, according to you partial, BF isn't playing so well this season, he is merely living off his recievers making plays. but alternatly following your logic ARod is a complete stud monster. He is by far the best QB in the NFL as his YPA is tops and his recievers helping him out with YAC is 29th as a % of total yards. Sometimes you should research before accidently making everyones argument for them.

:bclap: Very well done

[Partial]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 50 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 450 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career.

He's playing very well, so I can't be too hard on him, but part of the yards per completion has to do with the YACers and the quality of skill positions surrounding him.

Anyone want to do the research and compare YAC yards to BF's this season? And besides, leading a reciever properly leads to YAC, so part of it belongs to the QB.

What the hell, I did it myself:




NFL ranking Team YAC Pct. of total yards
6 Detroit 744 49.5
7 Minnesota 982 48.9
21 Chicago 718 42.7
29 Green Bay 712 35.5
Source: ESPN's Stats & Information

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/11318/air-and-space-talkin-yac-in-the-nfc-north


A couple of numerical parameters to keep in mind: St. Louis has the NFL’s highest YAC percentage at 53.8. Tampa Bay has the lowest at 34 percent, and the NFL’s median YAC is Buffalo at 44.7 percent.

As you can see, Minnesota by far has more total yards after the catch. The other three division teams have roughly the same total, but the Lions have the highest percentage relative to their total yardage.

LOL, according to you partial, BF isn't playing so well this season, he is merely living off his recievers making plays. but alternatly following your logic ARod is a complete stud monster. He is by far the best QB in the NFL as his YPA is tops and his recievers helping him out with YAC is 29th as a % of total yards. Sometimes you should research before accidently making everyones argument for them.

Good statistics but this really pisses me off. I said he is playing very well, yet you try to interpret that as saying he is playing poorly, when that is not at all what I'm saying.

Have your stats. Stats don't tell the whole story and you know it. There is a lot more to taking a step from a good player than a great player to having pretty stats.

[sharpe1027]

Have your stats. Stats don't tell the whole story and you know it.

You were the one that brought up that point about YAC. When someone actually took the time to look into your argument, it turns out to support exactly the opposite of what you were arguing. Now, suddenly your argument means nothing because it is just "stats."

You have your conclusion/opinion regarding Rodgers. That's fine. Just realize that your posts sound, (at least to me) like someone more interested in finding ways to support a predetermined conclusion than having an honest discussion with give and take.

Anyway, Rodgers is playing very well. He weathered the storm of poor line play well enough to keep them in contention for a playoff spot. Let's hope the team keeps improving. In particular, I am starting to regain some of the pre-season excitement about the D, even with the recent losses.

[pbmax]

Someone is going to have to get into the meat of the methodology before drawing conclusions because the Stats Inc. numbers cited by Waldo are a LITTLE different from ESPN.

Overall YAC Rank Team Name Yards YAC % Passing Yards

6. Packers 1378 [47.67%]
10. Vikings 1293 [51.91%]
14. Bears 1227 [51.13%]
15. Lions 1222 [52.40%]

[ThunderDan]

Someone is going to have to get into the meat of the methodology before drawing conclusions because the Stats Inc. numbers cited by Waldo are a LITTLE different from ESPN.

Overall YAC Rank Team Name Yards YAC % Passing Yards

6. Packers 1378 [47.67%]
10. Vikings 1293 [51.91%]
14. Bears 1227 [51.13%]
15. Lions 1222 [52.40%]

I can't find YAC anywhere on the ESPN site. Where did you find this?

[pbmax]

Advanced NFL Stats

Air Yards (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/08/introducing-air-yards.html) - The QB dependent portion of Passing Yards

Money Paragraph

Air Yds/Completion accounts for 56% of the variance in Yds/Attempt, while YAC/Completion accounts for 20% of the variance. As a proportion of the total variance explained by both variables, Air Yds accounts for 74%, and YAC accounts for the other 26%. Put simply, Air Yards are 3 times as important than YAC in producing total passing efficiency.

Who Gets Credit For YAC (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/08/who-gets-credit-for-yac.html)

[pbmax]

Someone is going to have to get into the meat of the methodology before drawing conclusions because the Stats Inc. numbers cited by Waldo are a LITTLE different from ESPN.

Overall YAC Rank Team Name Yards YAC % Passing Yards

6. Packers 1378 [47.67%]
10. Vikings 1293 [51.91%]
14. Bears 1227 [51.13%]
15. Lions 1222 [52.40%]

I can't find YAC anywhere on the ESPN site. Where did you find this?
Bobblehead got his YAC numebrs from one of the ESPN NFL blogs.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/11318/air-and-space-talkin-yac-in-the-nfc-north

My data is from Waldo's earlier post from Stat's Inc (http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231).

[sharpe1027]

Someone is going to have to get into the meat of the methodology before drawing conclusions because the Stats Inc. numbers cited by Waldo are a LITTLE different from ESPN.

Overall YAC Rank Team Name Yards YAC % Passing Yards

6. Packers 1378 [47.67%]
10. Vikings 1293 [51.91%]
14. Bears 1227 [51.13%]
15. Lions 1222 [52.40%]

I think the blog was an older date.

[Packers4Ever]

[quote="packers11"]Partial will never let this fking argument up. I am so sick of watching this shit in every fking Rodgers thread..

K ...

Tom Brady sucks (moss-welker make him) Look at the "stats" he never threw over 30 td's before they came... His surrounding cast makes him ... :roll:

Brees sucks. 8-8 last year with all those weapons?! Are you kidding me, that explosive offense and you cannot get past 8-8, your just a product of the system... :roll:

Partial, I never bash posters, and i've let all your rambling pass by me, but man, you just are going way to far with this shit...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So why are you reading his threads? Just pass them by, man....it's
that easy !!
:wink:

[RashanGary]

Just dropping in to give Partial some public credit that I think he's owed from me. This seems like as good of thread as any to do it.

He's argued something has been wrong with the QB position since Favre left and I agree. Rodgers has really cost us up until these last couple weeks and I was unable to see it because of the stats.

In some ways, I think Favre masked coaching flaws in McCarthy. From what I understand of McCarthy's offense, there are different progressions for each passing play depending on defense and then checks if the play is just bad all together. The problem with that is defenses are paid too. They can easily show one thing and then do another. If a QB goes to the line, thinks he's getting cover 3 and sets his progression, he's going to be in a world of hurt when he finds out the corners are sitting short and now he has to start flipping through his progressions.

It seems like Rodgers is running into a lot of problems with masked coverage (much more earlier in the season). Several times I heard McCarthy talk about defenses masking coverages, causing Rodgers to go through his reads a little more and then they blamed the OL.

Favre wasn't so robotic in the offense. Sometimes, If Favre saw a corner 4 yards off, knew his receiver was running a slant and knew he could count on him to make a touch catch, Favre would just take what he saw as a sure thing instead of trying to run the perfect play. Favre seems to rely more on just making good, old fashioned plays. McCarthy seems to want the QB to get in a perfect play and go through the perfect progression, but what about when a defense does something completely different after the snap. Now the QB has to change his presnap thinking and go to plan B. The result is sacks.


McCarthy never learned because Favre never let him. If something wasn't working, I get the impression Favre just did what he wanted instead of finding out the hard way. McCarthy and Rodgers found out the hard way this year.


I'm not sure Rodgers can be a real great QB. Despite his numbers, those sacks have been completely unacceptable and IMO should knock his QB rating down at least 10 pts if not more.



Rodger is finally starting to truly play great IMO (last couple weeks) but even that hasn't happened consistently enough for me to really believe in this McCarthy/Rodgers pair.

Partial has been right up until now IMO. Stats aside, until recently I don't think Rodgers has done as good of job as we're used to, leading a team to points and long drives. Until the last few weeks (compared to Favre) he's been a big reason we weren't as good as we were with him. Favre wasn't a big play guy in the sense that he made more big, crazy throws than Rodgers. Rodgers makes more WOW plays IMO. More last year and way more this year than Favre has made in years. Favre gives a big mother fucking WOW for how he manages an offense, sustains drives and scores points. Favre's WOW isn't individual big plays like Rodgers last year and part of this year, it's scoring points.

[Smidgeon]

Just dropping in to give Partial some public credit that I think he's owed from me. This seems like as good of thread as any to do it.

He's argued something has been wrong with the QB position since Favre left and I agree. Rodgers has really cost us up until these last couple weeks and I was unable to see it because of the stats.

In some ways, I think Favre masked coaching flaws in McCarthy. From what I understand of McCarthy's offense, there are different progressions for each passing play depending on defense and then checks if the play is just bad all together. The problem with that is defenses are paid too. They can easily show one thing and then do another. If a QB goes to the line, thinks he's getting cover 3 and sets his progression, he's going to be in a world of hurt when he finds out the corners are sitting short and now he has to start flipping through his progressions.

It seems like Rodgers is running into a lot of problems with masked coverage (much more earlier in the season). Several times I heard McCarthy talk about defenses masking coverages, causing Rodgers to go through his reads a little more and then they blamed the OL.

Favre wasn't so robotic in the offense. Sometimes, If Favre saw a corner 4 yards off, knew his receiver was running a slant and knew he could count on him to make a touch catch, Favre would just take what he saw as a sure thing instead of trying to run the perfect play. Favre seems to rely more on just making good, old fashioned plays. McCarthy seems to want the QB to get in a perfect play and go through the perfect progression, but what about when a defense does something completely different after the snap. Now the QB has to change his presnap thinking and go to plan B. The result is sacks.


McCarthy never learned because Favre never let him. If something wasn't working, I get the impression Favre just did what he wanted instead of finding out the hard way. McCarthy and Rodgers found out the hard way this year.


I'm not sure Rodgers can be a real great QB. Despite his numbers, those sacks have been completely unacceptable and IMO should knock his QB rating down at least 10 pts if not more.



Rodger is finally starting to truly play great IMO (last couple weeks) but even that hasn't happened consistently enough for me to really believe in this McCarthy/Rodgers pair.

Partial has been right up until now IMO. Stats aside, until recently I don't think Rodgers has done as good of job as we're used to, leading a team to points and long drives. Until the last few weeks (compared to Favre) he's been a big reason we weren't as good as we were with him. Favre wasn't a big play guy in the sense that he made more big, crazy throws than Rodgers. Rodgers makes more WOW plays IMO. More last year and way more this year than Favre has made in years. Favre gives a big mother fucking WOW for how he manages an offense, sustains drives and scores points. Favre's WOW isn't individual big plays like Rodgers last year and part of this year, it's scoring points.

Now where are you comparing Rodgers to Favre? Rodgers to Favre with 17 years of experience, with 15 years, 10 years, or the same 1.5 years that Rodgers has? It seems based on your argument that Favre could do it and Rodgers can't that Rodgers may never be great. Give him the same experience Favre had, then let's compare how well he makes those adjustments at the line...

[RashanGary]

Hopefully it was a matter of getting a couple seasons under his belt and the recent Rodgers is the real Rodgers. If that's the case, he can be one of the special players that helps lead us to a championship.

If he plays like he played for his first year and half starting (stats aside), I don't think we can win.



Comparing Favre to Rodgers:

Rodgers should knock 15 pts off his QB rating for all the dumb sacks and when you do that, I think the numbers show what really happened, we took a step back. Hopefully it was a step back to take two forward, but I agree with Partial now, we took a step back and a significant one.

[RashanGary]

Now where are you comparing Rodgers to Favre? Rodgers to Favre with 17 years of experience, with 15 years, 10 years, or the same 1.5 years that Rodgers has? It seems based on your argument that Favre could do it and Rodgers can't that Rodgers may never be great. Give him the same experience Favre had, then let's compare how well he makes those adjustments at the line...


That's true. But Favre was such a physical specimen. I don't think Rodgers will be able to play in the NFL at 40. Favre's physical ability allowed him to get that experience.

I'm hopeful that Rodgers can learn quicker though. Rodgers seems like a qucker study than Favre. I'm certainly not saying Rodgers can't be a great QB.

[RashanGary]

If Rodgers can quickly become a cerebral QB like Manning and Brady did, look the hell out. Rodgers, IMO, can throw the football with the greatest of the great.

Now can he take the next step and do all of it without getting sacked like the great ones too? If he does that the Packers are looking at entering a special era. The way he's played the last couple weeks (Dallas, SF, DET) I think he's been one of the greatest players in the NFL. Is it real though? Is this him growing or is he going to go back to the Rodgers we're used to?

[esoxx]

Wow, look who crawled in during the dark of night. :lol:

I know, you'll start out with your mild and mainstream view of things, soft pedaling your points so nicely.

Seems like a rationale fellow.

But Sybil isn't far underneath the surface. Hey, is that Bill Bixby over there?

By Day #2 you'll start a twisted thread about good and evil, right and wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Or is that Day #3?

Anyways, nice to have you back Alonzo.

[channtheman]

I disagree that we took a step back and I also don't think Favre would be playing so well if he was still with the Packers.

Favre in Green Bay could do no wrong. Yes, we all screamed at the TV at the stupid INT's but if he was still in Green Bay, we would excuse it for all the plays he made.

TT shipped Favre outta town and he wanted to prove to TT he could still do it. He got hurt in New York and from then I think he realized he couldn't make all the throws. That along with wanting to get back at TT has made Favre, now more than ever, play within the system. He takes what the defense gives him and when he goes deep it is to 1 on 1 coverage or the guy is open. You don't see those lame duck passes from Favre anymore. Favre in his younger years never stayed in the system and always thought he could fit it in there, leading to a lot of unnecessary INT's in the red zone and on 1st down.

[bobblehead]

Wow, look who crawled in during the dark of night. :lol:

I know, you'll start out with your mild and mainstream view of things, soft pedaling your points so nicely.

Seems like a rationale fellow.

But Sybil isn't far underneath the surface. Hey, is that Bill Bixby over there?

By Day #2 you'll start a twisted thread about good and evil, right and wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Or is that Day #3?

Anyways, nice to have you back Alonzo.

At least he is bothering to take a day of good cause....and your incredible civility shown here I'm sure makes it easier for him to continue posting politely.

[3irty1]

The Favre/Rodgers comparisons are failing to recognize the dramatic improvements in Favre. He took a monster step forward in 2007 and another monster step this year. I believe his time away from football has given him a new mindset. He has realized his own limits and is now playing within those limits. Until the last few years I'd much prefer to have the Aaron Rodgers over the player Favre was for most of his career.

The arguments against Rodgers are getting thinner and thinner. He might now be Peyton Manning but IMO he's at least as good as Big Ben and asking for more than that is just being greedy.

[ThunderDan]

Comparing Favre to Rodgers:

Rodgers should knock 15 pts off his QB rating for all the dumb sacks and when you do that, I think the numbers show what really happened, we took a step back. Hopefully it was a step back to take two forward, but I agree with Partial now, we took a step back and a significant one.

Do you even remember Favre's first couple of years starting?

Favre got cheered very loudy for throwing the ball away in a game, kinda like what Rodgers is starting to do.

Favre's 1st full 5 years in the league he had 34, 30, 31, 33 and 40 sacks. Should we take only 10 points off of his 85.3 or 72.2 QB ratings his first 2 years.

It wasn't until Brett's 10th year in the league that his sacks went down consistantly. It takes a long time to learn pocket awareness.

[Pugger]

I disagree that we took a step back and I also don't think Favre would be playing so well if he was still with the Packers.

Favre in Green Bay could do no wrong. Yes, we all screamed at the TV at the stupid INT's but if he was still in Green Bay, we would excuse it for all the plays he made.

TT shipped Favre outta town and he wanted to prove to TT he could still do it. He got hurt in New York and from then I think he realized he couldn't make all the throws. That along with wanting to get back at TT has made Favre, now more than ever, play within the system. He takes what the defense gives him and when he goes deep it is to 1 on 1 coverage or the guy is open. You don't see those lame duck passes from Favre anymore. Favre in his younger years never stayed in the system and always thought he could fit it in there, leading to a lot of unnecessary INT's in the red zone and on 1st down.

I doubt TT ran BF out of town until August of 2008. If BF never retired it's quite possible he'd still be our starter. If TT wanted to get rid of BF and play is boy AR why didn't he trade #4 after the lousy 2005 season? But I'd love to know why Favre couldn't/wouldn't play within the system when he was here? Did it take him 16 years to figure that out?

I don't think it is fair to either player to compare BF to AR. BF has years of experience reading defenses and AR has only, what, 27 starts to his career? It will make more sense to do this after both fellas are done playing and we can look back at the entire body of work for both.

[SkinBasket]

It's kind of really fucking boring that every Rodgers thread becomes a Favre thread, and that for some annoying people, he'll never be a great QB, just an average, or slightly better than average, QB who just happens to play really well, but who's ability isn't indicated by his own QB statistics, but instead only by the most collective team stat of all - Wins and Losses. Just sayin. This thread sucks.

[MJZiggy]

Just sayin. This thread sucks.

And we have a winner.

[channtheman]

I disagree that we took a step back and I also don't think Favre would be playing so well if he was still with the Packers.

Favre in Green Bay could do no wrong. Yes, we all screamed at the TV at the stupid INT's but if he was still in Green Bay, we would excuse it for all the plays he made.

TT shipped Favre outta town and he wanted to prove to TT he could still do it. He got hurt in New York and from then I think he realized he couldn't make all the throws. That along with wanting to get back at TT has made Favre, now more than ever, play within the system. He takes what the defense gives him and when he goes deep it is to 1 on 1 coverage or the guy is open. You don't see those lame duck passes from Favre anymore. Favre in his younger years never stayed in the system and always thought he could fit it in there, leading to a lot of unnecessary INT's in the red zone and on 1st down.

I doubt TT ran BF out of town until August of 2008. If BF never retired it's quite possible he'd still be our starter. If TT wanted to get rid of BF and play is boy AR why didn't he trade #4 after the lousy 2005 season? But I'd love to know why Favre couldn't/wouldn't play within the system when he was here? Did it take him 16 years to figure that out?

I don't think it is fair to either player to compare BF to AR. BF has years of experience reading defenses and AR has only, what, 27 starts to his career? It will make more sense to do this after both fellas are done playing and we can look back at the entire body of work for both.

Fuck if I know why Favre couldn't play within the system. But just look at his INT totals over the years. He was taking risks his whole career when he should have been taking the check down or taking what the defense gives you. This is the first year EVER that that is all he's done and look how good his stats are.

[mraynrand]

The Favre/Rodgers comparisons are failing to recognize the dramatic improvements in Favre. He took a monster step forward in 2007 and another monster step this year. I believe his time away from football has given him a new mindset. He has realized his own limits and is now playing within those limits. Until the last few years I'd much prefer to have the Aaron Rodgers over the player Favre was for most of his career.

The arguments against Rodgers are getting thinner and thinner. He might now be Peyton Manning but IMO he's at least as good as Big Ben and asking for more than that is just being greedy.

Time away from football?

[MJZiggy]

The Favre/Rodgers comparisons are failing to recognize the dramatic improvements in Favre. He took a monster step forward in 2007 and another monster step this year. I believe his time away from football has given him a new mindset. He has realized his own limits and is now playing within those limits. Until the last few years I'd much prefer to have the Aaron Rodgers over the player Favre was for most of his career.

The arguments against Rodgers are getting thinner and thinner. He might now be Peyton Manning but IMO he's at least as good as Big Ben and asking for more than that is just being greedy.

Time away from football?

Yes, the offseason while the rest of the team is working.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

The Favre/Rodgers comparisons are failing to recognize the dramatic improvements in Favre. He took a monster step forward in 2007 and another monster step this year. I believe his time away from football has given him a new mindset. He has realized his own limits and is now playing within those limits. Until the last few years I'd much prefer to have the Aaron Rodgers over the player Favre was for most of his career.

The arguments against Rodgers are getting thinner and thinner. He might now be Peyton Manning but IMO he's at least as good as Big Ben and asking for more than that is just being greedy.

Time away from football?

Yes, the offseason while the rest of the team is working.

Hey, it takes a lot of time to shoot Wranglers and Sears commercials! And of course, the offseason waffling that we've all come to expect since 2005(or was it earlier? I've tuned it out since).

[bobblehead]

I disagree that we took a step back and I also don't think Favre would be playing so well if he was still with the Packers.

Favre in Green Bay could do no wrong. Yes, we all screamed at the TV at the stupid INT's but if he was still in Green Bay, we would excuse it for all the plays he made.

TT shipped Favre outta town and he wanted to prove to TT he could still do it. He got hurt in New York and from then I think he realized he couldn't make all the throws. That along with wanting to get back at TT has made Favre, now more than ever, play within the system. He takes what the defense gives him and when he goes deep it is to 1 on 1 coverage or the guy is open. You don't see those lame duck passes from Favre anymore. Favre in his younger years never stayed in the system and always thought he could fit it in there, leading to a lot of unnecessary INT's in the red zone and on 1st down.

I doubt TT ran BF out of town until August of 2008. If BF never retired it's quite possible he'd still be our starter. If TT wanted to get rid of BF and play is boy AR why didn't he trade #4 after the lousy 2005 season? But I'd love to know why Favre couldn't/wouldn't play within the system when he was here? Did it take him 16 years to figure that out?

I don't think it is fair to either player to compare BF to AR. BF has years of experience reading defenses and AR has only, what, 27 starts to his career? It will make more sense to do this after both fellas are done playing and we can look back at the entire body of work for both.

Fuck if I know why Favre couldn't play within the system. But just look at his INT totals over the years. He was taking risks his whole career when he should have been taking the check down or taking what the defense gives you. This is the first year EVER that that is all he's done and look how good his stats are.

chan, you nailed it like a cheap date. MM BEGGED BF to play the way he is for minny right now, and BF pouted. If BF thinks he is proving anything other than "MM was right all along and I'm a spoiled brat" then he is more self deluded than I thought.

ANYONE who wants to prove me wrong, point out the last 11 game stretch where BF threw anywhere NEAR 3 interceptions....wait, it was probably with atlanta :shock:

Your post should have been a threadkiller my man.

[MOBB DEEP]

Yes, the offseason while the rest of the team is working.

He's always busy polishing his 3 MVP trophies and making room for his fourth

Why be off-season warrior at age 93? :roll:

Even God rested so shouldnt Lord?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Yes, the offseason while the rest of the team is working.

He's always busy polishing his 3 MVP trophies and making room for his fourth

Why be off-season warrior at age 93? :roll:

Even God rested so shouldnt Lord?

Thou shalt not worship false idols.

[MOBB DEEP]

Yes, the offseason while the rest of the team is working.

He's always busy polishing his 3 MVP trophies and making room for his fourth

Why be off-season warrior at age 93? :roll:

Even God rested so shouldnt Lord?

Thou shalt not worship false idols.

:lol:

[sharpe1027]

Partial has been right up until now IMO. Stats aside, until recently I don't think Rodgers has done as good of job as we're used to, leading a team to points and long drives.

Wow, and all this time I just need to realize that Partial's point was just that "Rodgers isn't yet as good Favre." I must have missed that in posts about Rodgers being average. About Rodgers being a product of the system. About Rodgers being boosted by all the talent around him. About Rodgers not being as good as Culter (must have been a typo and meant Favre). About Rodger's number being boosted by YAC. About YAC stats not mattering.

I can't imagine how I got the impression that Partial was saying something more than just Rodger's isn't yet as good as one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

No shit he isn't yet as good a first-ballot HoF QB. To think, all this time I totally agreed with Partial and never new it.... :lol: :lol:

Moving on please. Please.

[RashanGary]

Well, in favor to Partial, with the way the Packers decided to move on from Favre, the comparison should be to Favre.

Not that Rodgers deserves it, but MM and TT do.

[ThunderDan]

Well, in favor to Partial, with the way the Packers decided to move on from Favre, the comparison should be to Favre.

Not that Rodgers deserves it, but MM and TT do.

No it shouldn't. It should be how well he plays with the talent around him.

As much as people bitch about W and L, ARod doesn't play defense and he can't stop our Special Teams drastic loss of field position every week be it return or coverage.

[retailguy]

will it ever end? Please?

Look, the issue isn't Favre/Rodgers. It never was, and never will be.

Right now, the issue is the OL. It is playing better and so is the team. Favre plays for the VIKINGS. Let it go. Just let it go.

[RashanGary]

I think it's a combination of McCarthy and Rodgers and honestly, it might be more McCarthy than Rodgers.

I'm fast becoming a big detractor of McCarthy for several reasons. Time and time again this offseason he talked about how much better our team was than our record. He made a comment a couple weeks ago about not being able to watch as much film because he's the HC. Well, if you're calling the plays and setting the game plan, you damn well better be watching the film or how can you make that instinctual playcall that kills your opponent if you don't even know what they try to do?

McCarthy came here a single man who couldn't sniff a crotch and in now he's become Mr. social in the community and has himself a hot wife. Look, good for him, but the arrogance with "being better than the record" and the complacency of "not watching as much film" and then him going big time and dating a hot chick (eventually married, whatever). Not too many head coaches are out wooing Mrs. right. NOt too many head choaches have that time. Most of them are married already with wives that understand the commitment their husband have to make to football. McCarthy just doesn't strike me as Mr. Commitment to this football team. That's a hunch, certainly it can have holes in it. Certainly nobody has to agree but that's the impression I get from this guy. I think he lost his ground, lost his humility. After losing to Tampa and all of the talk about him being fired, I think there was a reality check for him and I see a guy who lost his arrogant edge in the interviews. I don't think he has the type of sterling character that it will last though. He strikes me as an arrogant big head.

Anyway, Rodgers has done great the last three games. He's gotten rid of the ball. He's taken more dump offs, more quick throws. . . He's also found a way to make some of the big plays too, but the short stuff is what we were missing IMO. The simple things done really well consistently often times are better than the big things IMO. Whether it be McCarthy trying to do something different or Rodgers just not making the right decisions, something was wrong. I hope it stays fixed.

[pbmax]

No Head Coach can watch as much film as a coordinator because he needs to evaluate the entire team not just one side of the ball and has obligations that extend beyond the film room. That's where Philbin comes in and this is not uncommon, every play calling head coach has faced this difficulty.

Speculation about the coach's social status is simply fitting a circumstance to an event after the fact. If the team had one or two more wins, everyone would be saying that marriage was agreeing with him. We can barely understand the play calling changes he made before the Dallas game and yet we think we can separate out how the personal life of one person is affecting the team? Come off it.

[SnakeLH2006]

Just dropping in to give Partial some public credit that I think he's owed from me. This seems like as good of thread as any to do it.

He's argued something has been wrong with the QB position since Favre left and I agree. Rodgers has really cost us up until these last couple weeks and I was unable to see it because of the stats.

In some ways, I think Favre masked coaching flaws in McCarthy. From what I understand of McCarthy's offense, there are different progressions for each passing play depending on defense and then checks if the play is just bad all together. The problem with that is defenses are paid too. They can easily show one thing and then do another. If a QB goes to the line, thinks he's getting cover 3 and sets his progression, he's going to be in a world of hurt when he finds out the corners are sitting short and now he has to start flipping through his progressions.

It seems like Rodgers is running into a lot of problems with masked coverage (much more earlier in the season). Several times I heard McCarthy talk about defenses masking coverages, causing Rodgers to go through his reads a little more and then they blamed the OL.

Favre wasn't so robotic in the offense. Sometimes, If Favre saw a corner 4 yards off, knew his receiver was running a slant and knew he could count on him to make a touch catch, Favre would just take what he saw as a sure thing instead of trying to run the perfect play. Favre seems to rely more on just making good, old fashioned plays. McCarthy seems to want the QB to get in a perfect play and go through the perfect progression, but what about when a defense does something completely different after the snap. Now the QB has to change his presnap thinking and go to plan B. The result is sacks.


McCarthy never learned because Favre never let him. If something wasn't working, I get the impression Favre just did what he wanted instead of finding out the hard way. McCarthy and Rodgers found out the hard way this year.


I'm not sure Rodgers can be a real great QB. Despite his numbers, those sacks have been completely unacceptable and IMO should knock his QB rating down at least 10 pts if not more.



Rodger is finally starting to truly play great IMO (last couple weeks) but even that hasn't happened consistently enough for me to really believe in this McCarthy/Rodgers pair.

Partial has been right up until now IMO. Stats aside, until recently I don't think Rodgers has done as good of job as we're used to, leading a team to points and long drives. Until the last few weeks (compared to Favre) he's been a big reason we weren't as good as we were with him. Favre wasn't a big play guy in the sense that he made more big, crazy throws than Rodgers. Rodgers makes more WOW plays IMO. More last year and way more this year than Favre has made in years. Favre gives a big mother fucking WOW for how he manages an offense, sustains drives and scores points. Favre's WOW isn't individual big plays like Rodgers last year and part of this year, it's scoring points.

It's hard to believe (for Snake and most) but I agree with JH agreeing with Partial...yep.

Arod has been stats great, but those win-losses add up. Favre has always been a HUGE winner (and now). ARod's stats are predicated on the big play (or take sacks). Maybe there's a reason he's 13-14 as a starter and Favre's winning % is through the roof with every team he's played for... I like Arod, but those sacks kill drives....Favre never did that (and to those that claim INT's for Brett....he still won and manages a game like a champ).

I'm a big ARod fan, but Snake would still take 40 year BF over ARod right now. We'd win games. He's that special.

Stats are misleading. Carson Palmer puts up crazy stats over his career. Has he won anything? Kobe does his shit and wins. Carmelo put up the same stats and loses. I hate both NBA players, but the assessment is fair. Similar stats aside, some guys win games, some don't.

I'm not a Partial fan lately, but you guys are really trying to chew him up with stats and it's unfair to a point. Rodgers QB rating is better, but is not a winner yet (and hope he is)....Favre's stats aren't as good over his career, but his winning records (18/19 years as a starter with a winning record) speak volumes. Nothing wrong with a winner...at all.

Some guys have it...some don't. I can't think of one game where ARod just came back and won it for us...his stats are great, but I don't get the vibe (we are down and ARod is gonna win this for us)...Favre did that. I'll take that anyday.

So really, lay off Partial or man up. I think most around here hate on BF cuz of his Vike shit, but really the dude wins games, and as great as ARod has been stats wise, we haven't won much under him. That's not all on him, but hey, you guys are naming names of who won this/stat this...

Favre is one the best athlete/winners of any pro sport team bar none. ARod hasn't done shit yet, but you wanna compare him to Brett. Icon/legend vs. up-and-coming done nothing as of yet QB. I like ARod, but that is a crock to think he's in BF's league given he's done little yet to prove that much.

Give BF some respect. Even at 40, he's the clear MVP of this league with a 9-1 team. That's fucking amazing. (Snake self-nominates this for post of the year)

[Bossman641]

Some guys have it...some don't. I can't think of one game where ARod just came back and won it for us...his stats are great, but I don't get the vibe (we are down and ARod is gonna win this for us)...Favre did that. I'll take that anyday.

See, this is where I disagree. For his last couple years, I had more confidence in the fact that Favre would throw a stupid INT to lose the game then I did in him leading them back. There was always the constant fear of him throwing a pick.

I really think the standards Rodgers is being held to are ridiculous - 1.75 years of starting vs years and years of fans' favorite Favre memories.

[RashanGary]

A whole lot of it is the teams you play for. The last 5 years, Favre has gone 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 9-7 and now I'm guessing another 13-3.

2 of the last 5 years (including this year) he'll make the playoffs.

The big difference between the good years and the bad years isn't Favre himself, but the team around him.


All NFL QB's can play on some level. The biggest difference between QB play from team to team is 7 parts surrounding team and 3 parts the QB himself IMO. When a good QB has a great team, the win the SB. When a good QB has a shit team, they suck ass.


All that said though, the Packers offense has had a big problem with getting the ball out. 25 sacks on 1st down!! That's insane. Most teams are trying to stop the run first and the teams we play are coming at Rodgers head. That falls on McCarthy and the run game too because if teams are coming at your QB's head on 1st down, you need to be doing something differently.

The Packers are now 13th in YPG running and 12th in YPC running. The long run of the season is 37 yards. They're not breaking big runs. If they had a couple big runs they might be top 5 or 6 in running. They are very consistent though. They keep getting yards over and over and over. They've committed much more to the run. That might be the biggest reason Rodgers isn't getting killed. We're grinding teams out with the run, so they have to slow up their pass rush a little on early downs. They can't just go at Rodgers and win. Also, they stopped trying so many long developing plays and went back to the short stuff more with a lot of little screens, dump offs, quick throws to a WR in the flat and so on. Instead of forcing OL to just "block better", they took pressure off in other ways. I can't believe it took so long.

Anyway, the Packers offense is finally starting to look like a premium unit and Rodgers has been the best player on one of hte best offenses in the NFL the last 3 games. My whole point with giving partial credit was that up until now I argued that Rodgers was playing great and in hindsight, I was wrong. Rodgers has not been playing great even if the stats say he has. Rodgers is just now starting to play great and if it keeps up, I'm really excited. I had all but given up on this team and this coach but the last few weeks make me feel like maybe they get it.

[Smidgeon]

I'm not a Partial fan lately, but you guys are really trying to chew him up with stats and it's unfair to a point. Rodgers QB rating is better, but is not a winner yet (and hope he is)....Favre's stats aren't as good over his career, but his winning records (18/19 years as a starter with a winning record) speak volumes. Nothing wrong with a winner...at all.

Favre is one the best athlete/winners of any pro sport team bar none. ARod hasn't done shit yet, but you wanna compare him to Brett. Icon/legend vs. up-and-coming done nothing as of yet QB. I like ARod, but that is a crock to think he's in BF's league given he's done little yet to prove that much.

Back to ARod isn't a good QB because he can't win? And you're comparing him to a 40 year old Favre? Yes, Favre is special, but be fair in your comparison and compare him to Favre at the same point in his career: in his second year starting. He was 8-5 the year he took over for Majik. His first two years starting he was 1 game over .500 at 9-7 each. That counts as "barely winning" (still a win but hardly "just winning"). So in BF's first three years starting, he didn't finish a season with 10 wins or more until his fourth season as a starter (including the 13 games he started after taking over for Majik). It looks like AR has a good chance of getting 10 wins in his second season. Don't compare AR to BF unless you're willing to compare them at the same point in their careers. Otherwise it's just an exercise of justifying your position without honestly taking a look at what's really happening.

I have statistics about winning that I've given Partial a couple times. I can bring those up if you want me to. There are 26 QBs in the HOF. Only 22 of them have available W-L records for their entire careers. Do you know how many didn't have a winning season either of their first two years? 10. Ten HOF QBs didn't do as well as AR has if he finishes with a winning record in their first 2 years. So don't tell me that AR just doesn't have what it takes. You don't know that yet because his career hasn't played out yet. You have to have a QB who can put up stats, otherwise you have no chance. If the QB can't put up stats, the team has no chance. None. Tell me how often teams win superbowls without an incredible stat-producing QB? The Dilfer led 2000 Ravens and who else?

And no, BF doesn't have 18/19 winning seasons. Two of his seasons were 8-8 seasons. Hardly "winning". Are you also forgetting the playoff games where he threw 6 INTs? Hardly "winning".

Yes, Favre is unique. He's a special QB. He's one of the all time greats. How many other QBs are still playing this well at age 40? So few. Okay: none. He's the first. I'm not discounting that. But it's taken his entire career to get this efficient. He wasn't playing this well between the superbowl years and 2007.

[Brandon494]

Back to ARod isn't a good QB because he can't win? And you're comparing him to a 40 year old Favre? Yes, Favre is special, but be fair in your comparison and compare him to Favre at the same point in his career: in his second year starting. He was 8-5 the year he took over for Majik. His first two years starting he was 1 game over .500 at 9-7 each. That counts as "barely winning" (still a win but hardly "just winning"). So in BF's first three years starting, he didn't finish a season with 10 wins or more until his fourth season as a starter (including the 13 games he started after taking over for Majik). It looks like AR has a good chance of getting 10 wins in his second season. Don't compare AR to BF unless you're willing to compare them at the same point in their careers. Otherwise it's just an exercise of justifying your position without honestly taking a look at what's really happening.

I have statistics about winning that I've given Partial a couple times. I can bring those up if you want me to. There are 26 QBs in the HOF. Only 22 of them have available W-L records for their entire careers. Do you know how many didn't have a winning season either of their first two years? 10. Ten HOF QBs didn't do as well as AR has if he finishes with a winning record in their first 2 years. So don't tell me that AR just doesn't have what it takes. You don't know that yet because his career hasn't played out yet. You have to have a QB who can put up stats, otherwise you have no chance. If the QB can't put up stats, the team has no chance. None. Tell me how often teams win superbowls without an incredible stat-producing QB? The Dilfer led 2000 Ravens and who else?

And no, BF doesn't have 18/19 winning seasons. Two of his seasons were 8-8 seasons. Hardly "winning". Are you also forgetting the playoff games where he threw 6 INTs? Hardly "winning".

Yes, Favre is unique. He's a special QB. He's one of the all time greats. How many other QBs are still playing this well at age 40? So few. Okay: none. He's the first. I'm not discounting that. But it's taken his entire career to get this efficient. He wasn't playing this well between the superbowl years and 2007.

+1

Rodgers has the highest QB rating in the league and is only 25, a year older than M. Ryan and J. Flacco. Yet people act like he should be a 10 year vet just because he sat on the bench his first couple of seasons.

[Smidgeon]

Back to ARod isn't a good QB because he can't win? And you're comparing him to a 40 year old Favre? Yes, Favre is special, but be fair in your comparison and compare him to Favre at the same point in his career: in his second year starting. He was 8-5 the year he took over for Majik. His first two years starting he was 1 game over .500 at 9-7 each. That counts as "barely winning" (still a win but hardly "just winning"). So in BF's first three years starting, he didn't finish a season with 10 wins or more until his fourth season as a starter (including the 13 games he started after taking over for Majik). It looks like AR has a good chance of getting 10 wins in his second season. Don't compare AR to BF unless you're willing to compare them at the same point in their careers. Otherwise it's just an exercise of justifying your position without honestly taking a look at what's really happening.

I have statistics about winning that I've given Partial a couple times. I can bring those up if you want me to. There are 26 QBs in the HOF. Only 22 of them have available W-L records for their entire careers. Do you know how many didn't have a winning season either of their first two years? 10. Ten HOF QBs didn't do as well as AR has if he finishes with a winning record in their first 2 years. So don't tell me that AR just doesn't have what it takes. You don't know that yet because his career hasn't played out yet. You have to have a QB who can put up stats, otherwise you have no chance. If the QB can't put up stats, the team has no chance. None. Tell me how often teams win superbowls without an incredible stat-producing QB? The Dilfer led 2000 Ravens and who else?

And no, BF doesn't have 18/19 winning seasons. Two of his seasons were 8-8 seasons. Hardly "winning". Are you also forgetting the playoff games where he threw 6 INTs? Hardly "winning".

Yes, Favre is unique. He's a special QB. He's one of the all time greats. How many other QBs are still playing this well at age 40? So few. Okay: none. He's the first. I'm not discounting that. But it's taken his entire career to get this efficient. He wasn't playing this well between the superbowl years and 2007.

+1

Rodgers has the highest QB rating in the league and is only 25, a year older than M. Ryan and J. Flacco. Yet people act like he should be a 10 year vet just because he sat on the bench his first couple of seasons.

I think people also forget that as he gets more experience, he's going to get better. He hasn't peaked yet.

[Chevelle2]

Why the hell has this become a Favre thread? My God...

[get louder at lambeau]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 51 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 454 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career. Second QB to have over 4000 yards in his first year as a starter (Kurt Warner was the first). He's on pace for 4561 yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions--with 359 rushing yards and 4-5 rushing TDs. Playmaker.

By the way, for some reason no one is talking about this fact, but Rodgers is on pace for a grand total of 4920 yards this year (4561 passing and 359 rushing), which would be the 2nd highest yardage total in NFL history, eclipsed ONLY by Marino in his magical 1984 season. Better than Favre, Manning, Brady, Elway, Montana, Young, etc. EVER had in any season.

Why haven't those fucktards at The Press Gazette and Journal-Sentinal mentioned this? Is that not even worth noting?

[Bretsky]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 51 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 454 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career. Second QB to have over 4000 yards in his first year as a starter (Kurt Warner was the first). He's on pace for 4561 yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions--with 359 rushing yards and 4-5 rushing TDs. Playmaker.

By the way, for some reason no one is talking about this fact, but Rodgers is on pace for a grand total of 4920 yards this year (4561 passing and 359 rushing), which would be the 2nd highest yardage total in NFL history, eclipsed ONLY by Marino in his magical 1984 season. Better than Favre, Manning, Brady, Elway, Montana, Young, etc. EVER had in any season.

Why haven't those fucktards at The Press Gazette and Journal-Sentinal mentioned this? Is that not even worth noting?


He's having a great year, and it's likely in his second year of starting he's taking us to the playoffs if he keeps it up

[Partial]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 51 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 454 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career. Second QB to have over 4000 yards in his first year as a starter (Kurt Warner was the first). He's on pace for 4561 yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions--with 359 rushing yards and 4-5 rushing TDs. Playmaker.

By the way, for some reason no one is talking about this fact, but Rodgers is on pace for a grand total of 4920 yards this year (4561 passing and 359 rushing), which would be the 2nd highest yardage total in NFL history, eclipsed ONLY by Marino in his magical 1984 season. Better than Favre, Manning, Brady, Elway, Montana, Young, etc. EVER had in any season.

Why haven't those fucktards at The Press Gazette and Journal-Sentinal mentioned this? Is that not even worth noting?

That is pretty unreal. That would be pretty cool to see a Packer hold that record.

[Waldo]

Rodger's game is to make a few plays when their, but avoid making mistakes at all costs. Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer the gunslinger.

WRONG! Rodgers is a playmaker. 51 TDs in 27 career starts. Add 454 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs to the total. Nothing against Favre, but you brought up the comparison. How about 7.6 yards/attempt in his career so far vs. 7.0 yards/attempt for Brett in his career. Second QB to have over 4000 yards in his first year as a starter (Kurt Warner was the first). He's on pace for 4561 yards, 32 TDs, and 7 interceptions--with 359 rushing yards and 4-5 rushing TDs. Playmaker.

By the way, for some reason no one is talking about this fact, but Rodgers is on pace for a grand total of 4920 yards this year (4561 passing and 359 rushing), which would be the 2nd highest yardage total in NFL history, eclipsed ONLY by Marino in his magical 1984 season. Better than Favre, Manning, Brady, Elway, Montana, Young, etc. EVER had in any season.

Why haven't those fucktards at The Press Gazette and Journal-Sentinal mentioned this? Is that not even worth noting?

Where is Bree's 2008? Didn't he miss Marino's record by like 15 yards?

[Administrator]

yes. he threw for 5069 yards. Marino threw for 5084 in 1984... 15 yards it is.. good memory.

[get louder at lambeau]

yes. he threw for 5069 yards. Marino threw for 5084 in 1984... 15 yards it is.. good memory.

Oops. Guess I was looking at a list that wasn't updated this year. OK, so 3rd highest yardage total ever, and still better than Manning, Brady, Favre, Montana, Young, etc. ever had in any season. :cow:

[packerbacker1234]

1. AR is not hte highest rated QB in the NFL - That honor is held by Favre.

Top 5 by ratings:

1. Brett Favre 112.1
2. Drew Brees 105.8
3. Aaron Rodgers 104.9
4. Peyton Manning 102.5
5. Tom Brady 100.4

Of course, I assume were talking "career", though I don't think it's even fair to mention anything, career wise, with AR when he hasn't even played 2 full seasons yet. 3 years from now, we can start talking career stuff.

Those ratings from this year though... nice to see. I think it's pretty clear cut that 4/5 of those qb's are teh top 4 in hte league this year, and the fact that AR can be in that crowd is impressive in year two. You have 3 for sure Hall of Famers in there, and who knows what happens with brees. Thats really good company to keep.

I think no one has mentioned "yards", because Peyton Manning and Matt Schaub have more yards (schaub I think even missed a game and still has more). Brady is right behind AR. So while he is on pace for 3rd all time in NFL history, he has 2 more QB's ahead of him that are on pace to be 1-2. Plus Brady may pass him before the year is up. If Big Ben was playing this week he would mos tlikely also be ahead of AR yardage wise.

I am pretty happy we have AR. Couldn't ask for a better situation following up a 16 year war horse HOF QB. I will criticize him for taking sacks and being a bit slow on the trigger, but he's young. 2 years from now that may not even be an issue.

[Partial]

yep, Packerbacker, I agree with you. The whole concept of the thread was to start a flame war. It's really unfair to compare only a few years to an entire career. Eventually the numbers will be normalized most likely due to quality of surrounding talent, up and down years, injuries, etc.

[PlantPage55]

Why haven't those fucktards at The Press Gazette and Journal-Sentinal mentioned this? Is that not even worth noting?

They are too busy doing everything possible to put our team down. Did you see Bedard's Tweets during the Viking game today? Two shots at McCarthy comparing the Bears awful team and Lovie's poor coaching job to Mac's job.

Has this team deserved criticism this year? Hell yes.

But if you only read how our fucking reporters write about the Packers but somehow never saw our record, you'd have to guess that we were below .500

Absolutely NO pimping of our 2nd and 5th ranked defense and offense. In fact, one of our esteemed writers recently decided to explain away those high rankings and make excuses against them.

How many teams' beat writers would do that? Most are trying to play up their team so that they get more recognition. Not so, with our stooges.

[pbmax]

... is 13-14 in games (27) he has started.

Brett Favre was 16-11 after 27 games.

Welcome to the world of small sample size.

At the end of 2009 (if he should start out the season) he will have started 32 games. Favre's record after 32 games was 18-14.

[Smidgeon]

Absolutely NO pimping of our 2nd and 5th ranked defense and offense. In fact, one of our esteemed writers recently decided to explain away those high rankings and make excuses against them.

Green Bay has:
The 5th best offense in terms of yards gained per game
The 6th best offense in terms of points scored per game
The 2nd best defense in terms of yards given up per game
The 22nd best defense in terms of points allowed per game

That last one is an important stat. Watch that one. GB is 28th in pass touchdowns allowed and 2nd in rush touchdowns allowed.

I tend to disagree with ranking a defense solely on yards gained or given up. Points, for me, are the other part of the equation, and it seems that the passing defense has given up way more touchdowns than it should. So I personally think the #2 overall defense is a bit overrated. The offense seems to be on target.

[ThunderDan]

Absolutely NO pimping of our 2nd and 5th ranked defense and offense. In fact, one of our esteemed writers recently decided to explain away those high rankings and make excuses against them.

Green Bay has:
The 5th best offense in terms of yards gained per game
The 6th best offense in terms of points scored per game
The 2nd best defense in terms of yards given up per game
The 22nd best defense in terms of points allowed per game

That last one is an important stat. Watch that one. GB is 28th in pass touchdowns allowed and 2nd in rush touchdowns allowed.

I tend to disagree with ranking a defense solely on yards gained or given up. Points, for me, are the other part of the equation, and it seems that the passing defense has given up way more touchdowns than it should. So I personally think the #2 overall defense is a bit overrated. The offense seems to be on target.

Sorry Smidg but you are wrong.

The Pack is averaging 19.5 ppg which is 11th in the league.

I am trying to look for long fields and how our D holds compared to others. Our special teams has given the D so many short fields to protect it is silly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Absolutely NO pimping of our 2nd and 5th ranked defense and offense. In fact, one of our esteemed writers recently decided to explain away those high rankings and make excuses against them.

Green Bay has:
The 5th best offense in terms of yards gained per game
The 6th best offense in terms of points scored per game
The 2nd best defense in terms of yards given up per game
The 22nd best defense in terms of points allowed per game

That last one is an important stat. Watch that one. GB is 28th in pass touchdowns allowed and 2nd in rush touchdowns allowed.

I tend to disagree with ranking a defense solely on yards gained or given up. Points, for me, are the other part of the equation, and it seems that the passing defense has given up way more touchdowns than it should. So I personally think the #2 overall defense is a bit overrated. The offense seems to be on target.

I'd agree, but you also have to factor in how pathetic our special teams have been. Take the Tampa Bay game. We gave up 38 points, but 21 points were from a blocked punt for TD, KO return for almost TD, and interception return for TD.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sorry Smidg but you are wrong.

The Pack is averaging 19.5 ppg which is 11th in the league.

I am trying to look for long fields and how our D holds compared to others. Our special teams has given the D so many short fields to protect it is silly.

ThunderDan is correct. We are 11th in points allowed/game. While our special teams have sucked, let's not forget that our offense rarely turns the ball over, so that does help the defense. I think the 11th in points allowed/game is closer to where we are at as a defense than the 2nd in yards allowed/game.

[ThunderDan]

Sorry Smidg but you are wrong.

The Pack is averaging 19.5 ppg which is 11th in the league.

I am trying to look for long fields and how our D holds compared to others. Our special teams has given the D so many short fields to protect it is silly.

ThunderDan is correct. We are 11th in points allowed/game. While our special teams have sucked, let's not forget that our offense rarely turns the ball over, so that does help the defense. I think the 11th in points allowed/game is closer to where we are at as a defense than the 2nd in yards allowed/game.

Harvey-

But to offset the O rarely turning it over is that we have the lowest net punting average in the NFL.

[get louder at lambeau]

I think no one has mentioned "yards", because Peyton Manning and Matt Schaub have more yards (schaub I think even missed a game and still has more). Brady is right behind AR. So while he is on pace for 3rd all time in NFL history, he has 2 more QB's ahead of him that are on pace to be 1-2. Plus Brady may pass him before the year is up. If Big Ben was playing this week he would mos tlikely also be ahead of AR yardage wise.

They are ahead in passing yards. I said total yards. Check it again. I believe Rodgers is leading the league.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I can't believe people are actually comparing Rodgers to Manning based on QB rating.

[get louder at lambeau]

I can't believe people are actually comparing Rodgers to Manning based on QB rating.

You're right. Passer rating completely ignores Rodgers's superior mobility. :five:

[Smidgeon]

Absolutely NO pimping of our 2nd and 5th ranked defense and offense. In fact, one of our esteemed writers recently decided to explain away those high rankings and make excuses against them.

Green Bay has:
The 5th best offense in terms of yards gained per game
The 6th best offense in terms of points scored per game
The 2nd best defense in terms of yards given up per game
The 22nd best defense in terms of points allowed per game

That last one is an important stat. Watch that one. GB is 28th in pass touchdowns allowed and 2nd in rush touchdowns allowed.

I tend to disagree with ranking a defense solely on yards gained or given up. Points, for me, are the other part of the equation, and it seems that the passing defense has given up way more touchdowns than it should. So I personally think the #2 overall defense is a bit overrated. The offense seems to be on target.

Sorry Smidg but you are wrong.

The Pack is averaging 19.5 ppg which is 11th in the league.

I am trying to look for long fields and how our D holds compared to others. Our special teams has given the D so many short fields to protect it is silly.

Where the h*ll did I get 22nd? Well, I found that we're 12th instead of 11th according to NFL.com. Doesn't explain my earlier gaffe though.

[packerbacker1234]

I think no one has mentioned "yards", because Peyton Manning and Matt Schaub have more yards (schaub I think even missed a game and still has more). Brady is right behind AR. So while he is on pace for 3rd all time in NFL history, he has 2 more QB's ahead of him that are on pace to be 1-2. Plus Brady may pass him before the year is up. If Big Ben was playing this week he would mos tlikely also be ahead of AR yardage wise.

They are ahead in passing yards. I said total yards. Check it again. I believe Rodgers is leading the league.

Even with Peyton Manning losing a .5 yard due to rushing stats, he still is #1.

Manning - 3414.5 yards
Rodgers - 3383 yards

He is only like, 100 up on schaub with rushing included.

So include rushing stats shall we? Then lets include all the yards we lost due to Rodgers "at fault" sacks.

[Partial]

Who cares about yards? The fact that Schaub is near the top should tell you how meaningless that stat is. Schaub is just a guy in my opinion.

[bobblehead]

Who cares about yards? The fact that Schaub is near the top should tell you how meaningless that stat is. Schaub is just a guy in my opinion.

Well, for a guy who likes to quote scouts you are in a big minority. Many personel guys thought he should have been starting over vick.

[Partial]

Who cares about yards? The fact that Schaub is near the top should tell you how meaningless that stat is. Schaub is just a guy in my opinion.

Well, for a guy who likes to quote scouts you are in a big minority. Many personel guys thought he should have been starting over vick.

I think he is a nice practice player but boy, he surely can't get it done in the big game can he? They have been trying and trying and have talent on that team but they just cannot get the job done. Sure, he plays in a good division, but part of being a QB is overcoming adversity and carrying a team. I don't really like him at all to be honest.

I don't think Vick was anything special either. I think Schaub is a better QB than Vick. Vick is too fragile to be a VY type player and has absolute 0 touch.

[RashanGary]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

The Packers biggest problem for the first 8 games of the season was Rodgers ended drives with dumb sacks and also penalties ending drives. That is a crown that McCarthy should share with Rodgers but I agree with Partial, the stats say Rodgers is great, but the reality is he's been hot and cold and the cold (along with penalties and ST's) are the three biggest reasons we're not 8-3 or 9-2.

[RashanGary]

If Rodgers plays the way he's played the last couple games for the rest of the year and our defense keeps it up, we're going to be hard to beat. I keep hoping the ST's starts to eek their way up to average, because the Packers are finally starting to look like a dangerous team.

And we get the Ravens after a really tough 68 minute Sunday night game against Pitt. We're coming off a Thursday game with good rest. I know Baltimore is physical, but our OL has been doing a great job run blocking and our DL is tough as hell. We could out physical one of hte physical teams because of the circumstances and because we're pretty physical too.

[Sparkey]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

The Packers biggest problem for the first 8 games of the season was Rodgers ended drives with dumb sacks and also penalties ending drives. That is a crown that McCarthy should share with Rodgers but I agree with Partial, the stats say Rodgers is great, but the reality is he's been hot and cold and the cold (along with penalties and ST's) are the three biggest reasons we're not 8-3 or 9-2.

Some of those sacks were a direct result of the penalties putting them in 1st and 2nd and long situations, which by nature, require deeper routes by receivers that in require the qb to hold the ball longer before throwing.

Not saying they are all due to that, but 2nd & 3rd and long are not ideal situations to throw from.

[ThunderDan]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

The Packers biggest problem for the first 8 games of the season was Rodgers ended drives with dumb sacks and also penalties ending drives. That is a crown that McCarthy should share with Rodgers but I agree with Partial, the stats say Rodgers is great, but the reality is he's been hot and cold and the cold (along with penalties and ST's) are the three biggest reasons we're not 8-3 or 9-2.

If not for the stupid penalties and the WORST SPECIAL TEAMS COVERAGE AND RETURNS in the NFL the Packers are easily 9-2. We beat TB without a doubt and 90% likely to have beaten CIN.

[pbmax]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

The Packers biggest problem for the first 8 games of the season was Rodgers ended drives with dumb sacks and also penalties ending drives. That is a crown that McCarthy should share with Rodgers but I agree with Partial, the stats say Rodgers is great, but the reality is he's been hot and cold and the cold (along with penalties and ST's) are the three biggest reasons we're not 8-3 or 9-2.
Rodgers has been responsible for less than 25% of the sacks given up this year. Anyone claiming this is mostly on the QB is whistling past the graveyard that was the Packer pass protection of the first eight games. For a second year starter, he has adjusted well mid-season.

This just in, he also does not cause lineman to jump offsides not does he cause Clifton to line up in an illegal formation. All these contribute to bad drives and punts that cost the Packers scoring opportunities.

[RashanGary]

Rodgers has 25 sacks on 1st down. I've said this time and again, but I'll say it again because obviously I haven't made this point clear enough.


Rodgers and McCarthy share this crown. They have a solid running game this year. There is no way in sam hell the Packers should have 25 sacks on 1st down. That number is just sick on many levels.

Teams should be playing the run honest on 1st down, not coming at the QB's head. (are we predictable on some level?)

Why haven't we run more quick passes (slants, WR screens, TE screens, RB screens, TE screens if your OL was strugglilng protecting the longer developing passes?

Why isn't the QB getting rid of the ball quicker?



McCarthy said over and over how he wasn't going to change anything and how the OL was going to have to block better. Just last week, Rodgers said they changed some things they didn't want to change and it helped. The biggest thing that's changed is our new reliance on teh short pass and the run game. That's the formula that made our offense great in 2007. The hot and cold QB play certainly isn't all Rodgers fault, but at least part of it is and the fact is, sacks have killed way too many drives.

Honestly, I can't stand McCarthy and I have a whole lot of hope for Rodgers but who ever is at fault, our QB play has slipped and it was really disappointing to watch.

It's finally picking up and the short pass and run game are the biggest reasons we're not getting teh sacks. We're just not putting our line over and over again in position where the lineman can come at Rodgers head. WE're mixing it up and that is forcing the opposition to play more run integrity and that is opening up the big plays because it's a lot easier to pass protect a DL that is playing teh run first.

[pbmax]

Rodgers has 25 sacks on 1st down. I've said this time and again, but I'll say it again because obviously I haven't made this point clear enough.

You are right, its not clear enough, because above you blamed the early season performance on something that is almost the complete opposite from a game situation perspective:


How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

Instead of telling us how you have been right all along, how about you make the case that its McCarthy and Rodgers and not the performance of the individuals on the offensive line?

Because I know of no information or circumstances that would point to Rodgers over the line save for one comment from Rodgers himself that one particular sack was a failure to pick up a blitz from a LB or DB from his left. He said he should have checked again.

There is the case that Rodgers has been hit by the RDE (or ROLB) three times as that guy has come unblocked and nailed him in the back, causing at lease one fumble. It happened with Julian Peterson last week and has happened with Jared Allen and DeMarcus Ware. But it is unclear if that is a protection issue, play design, pre-snap read or if Rodgers is failing to release fast enough.

McCarthy is fair game because even if the Org believea the O Line is talented enough to block the early offensive game plans, then its on him to adjust when it becomes clear they cannot. Which he said he did after the Dallas game.

Now you can argue that a more seasoned vet at QB might get rid of the ball more frequently or that McCarthy should have given up on his preferred gameplan earlier, but that does not change the fact that the O Line was horrible at pass blocking for eight games. And it is not clear if they are now better or being hidden by short route options.

[get louder at lambeau]

I think no one has mentioned "yards", because Peyton Manning and Matt Schaub have more yards (schaub I think even missed a game and still has more). Brady is right behind AR. So while he is on pace for 3rd all time in NFL history, he has 2 more QB's ahead of him that are on pace to be 1-2. Plus Brady may pass him before the year is up. If Big Ben was playing this week he would mos tlikely also be ahead of AR yardage wise.

They are ahead in passing yards. I said total yards. Check it again. I believe Rodgers is leading the league.

Even with Peyton Manning losing a .5 yard due to rushing stats, he still is #1.

Manning - 3414.5 yards
Rodgers - 3383 yards

He is only like, 100 up on schaub with rushing included.

So include rushing stats shall we? Then lets include all the yards we lost due to Rodgers "at fault" sacks.

Now that the Sunday stats are added Manning's ahead again. It was Rodgers. I guess it's more fair to look at them now, with 11 games each, though.

[Sparkey]

Who cares about yards? The fact that Schaub is near the top should tell you how meaningless that stat is. Schaub is just a guy in my opinion.

Well, for a guy who likes to quote scouts you are in a big minority. Many personel guys thought he should have been starting over vick.

Our own Mel Kiper Jr. .........."just a guy"

[Cheesehead Craig]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

This season a sack has ended a drive 15 out of the 121 drives. 3 of those sacks still resulted in a FG. So, I guess it comes down to how many of those sacks are on Rodgers and how many are on the OL?

[gbgary]

schaub is more than just a guy. if we didn't have rodgers i'd have no problem with schaub...or ryan...or young...or

[RashanGary]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

This season a sack has ended a drive 15 out of the 121 drives. 3 of those sacks still resulted in a FG. So, I guess it comes down to how many of those sacks are on Rodgers and how many are on the OL?

A sack ends a drive mroe than just actually ending it on 3rd down. 1st down, sack, turns into 2nd and 18 turns into drive killer.

[RashanGary]

The easy thing to do is blame the OL for these sacks. I disagree.


One thing about football that I'm learning that I get the impression a lot of people haven't caught on to is that there are different responsiblities for a DL on each given play. Those responsibilities play a big role in whether a DL will win a pass rush battle.


Some plays, a lineman will play run gap integrity first. Some plays they'll rush the passer first, but still maintain some gap integrity. Sometimes they'll be rushing the passer, but also responsible for a screen. Sometimes, they'll be just plain going at the QB's head.

Way too many times, on first down, lineman were coming straight at Rodgers head with no regard to the possibility of deception or the run. It was eerie, actually.



Was Rodgers just not willing to dump off to slow the rush down? Did McCarthy think he didn't have to do anything to slow the rush down (run, screens, dump offs?)


The very simplistic thing to say is, Clifton got burned, but the reality might be he was put in a tough spot with a lineman rushing straight up field during a long developing pass play. Had the opposition feared the run or deception plays even at all, they wouldn't have been able to pin their ears back.


The OL gets a share of this, for sure, they're not elite. I think they're every bit as good as they were in 2007 though with the big difference being the play selection, progression by the QB, stubbornness by the coach to go away from what he wanted to do after seeing Rodgers throw so well down the field all offseason and Rodgers just not being willing to try to throw the ball into tight spots, preferring instead to wait until a guy ran wide open and then taking sacks.

[Cheesehead Craig]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

This season a sack has ended a drive 15 out of the 121 drives. 3 of those sacks still resulted in a FG. So, I guess it comes down to how many of those sacks are on Rodgers and how many are on the OL?

A sack ends a drive mroe than just actually ending it on 3rd down. 1st down, sack, turns into 2nd and 18 turns into drive killer.

Makes the drive tougher, but doesn't end it.

[Sparkey]

How many drives has Rodgers ended with a dumb sack (failing to recognize a blitz and adjusting protection, holding the ball, etc)

This season a sack has ended a drive 15 out of the 121 drives. 3 of those sacks still resulted in a FG. So, I guess it comes down to how many of those sacks are on Rodgers and how many are on the OL?

A sack ends a drive mroe than just actually ending it on 3rd down. 1st down, sack, turns into 2nd and 18 turns into drive killer.

One thing to remember is not all those 1st down sacks were 1st & 10 sacks. May of them were 1st and 20 because of a holding or 1st & 15 after a false start.

[RashanGary]

Makes the drive tougher, but doesn't end it.

Thanks, Confucius. Just like a hold on 1st down doesn't technically end a drive but a great majority of the time it ends in a punt.

If you don't see how sacks on 1st down turns into a lot of punts, I'm sorry, but don't expect another response from me.

[RashanGary]

If you want to go dig up a stat, go count how many times Rodgers got sacked that ended up in a punt during that set of downs.


That will show you what the Sacks have done to this team.



And a case can be made that the OL is that much worse than 2007 and is the root of all the problems. Fine. Nobody is gonign to prove anyone wrong, there just isn't enough evidence.


What I believe about football tells me it's the QB and the stubborness to keep dropping back and letting the opposition come at the QB. My experience tells me there are ways to slow down the rush and the QB/Coach weren't using them. My experience tells me this Packers OL would do just fine running an offense similar to the 2007 offense, but up until just recently, they refused to do it.

[RashanGary]

And this is coming from a guy who said, "There will be very little drop off from the last QB to the new QB because of the surrounding team".

I still believe the surrounding team is hugely important to a large degree, but if a QB and coach just don't get it (seems to be teh case with MM and Rodgers), it can make a huge difference from when a QB and coach do get it (seems to be the case with Favre and McCarthy).

They thought they could just keep dropping back wihtout relying on the short passes and runs. They were wrong. In 2007 there was no such stubborness. Was that Favres experience telling him to do what worked despite MM? I don't know but as soon as Favre left, this offense hasn't been the same even if passing yards say it's similar. I'm with Partial and I was wrong. It's not the same. Something was wrong up until these last couple weeks when Rodgers started throwing ot tighter spoits instead of holding the ball, when they ran more short passes and runs. Something was just wrong. They made it way too hard on the OL. That's my perception.

[sharpe1027]

And a case can be made that the OL is that much worse than 2007 and is the root of all the problems. Fine. Nobody is gonign to prove anyone wrong, there just isn't enough evidence.


I watched the games, that is evidence enough for me. IMO, the O-line play was much, much worse. Not even close. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone that watched the games could come away with a different conclusion.

Would more dump-off and quick passes have help? Sure, but the difference in pass-blocking from 2007 to the beginning of this year was night and day. Just not even close, IMHO.

Just what do you think DBs do when they know there will be immediate pressure on the QB? I am no expert, but I would guess that they sit on the short routes and take their chances with getting beat deep. Also, when a team can get pressure with only 4 rushers, they will almost always have deep help.

It starts and ends with the O-line. IMO, blaming Rodgers for anything more than a few of the sacks is just not right.

[get louder at lambeau]

Something was just wrong. They made it way too hard on the OL. That's my perception.

I agree. They KNEW that the OL's pass protection was the weak point of the offense, and yet seemed to do nothing at all to take the pressure off of them. It would be like having a weak-armed QB and just ignoring that fact, calling lots of deep bombs anyway, instead of going for high percentage short passes. I think the blame can be spread around all over, from the line, to McCarthy, to Rodgers, to the WRs, etc.

[SkinBasket]

It starts and ends with the O-line. IMO, blaming Rodgers for anything more than a few of the sacks is just not right.

Ignoring 5 INTs through 11 games, and 2 in 10 of those is also not right. There's a trade off that some people want to ignore completely.

[bobblehead]

JH-

Take your impression now, and find the midpoint to where you were 12 months ago and you will find the truth.

ARod has taken many sacks he shouldn't have...all young starters do, or they throw interceptions...nature of being a young NFL QB.

MANY sacks that Arod took were because an OL (often Babre) Got flat out owned to the point ARod had zero shot of doing anything.

It was a two part problem. Way back when BF left us I said I was glad and it was time, but BACK THEN I said that I would likely miss him when our young QB ate a few sacks because he didn't get rid of the ball. It didn't take a genius to see that coming.

NOW, what I didn't see coming was MM being stubborn enough to start a complete turnstile at RT for 8? games before making a switch, and compounding the problem immensely.

You're a good poster and you obviously have an ability to learn from your mistakes, but the last step you have to take is to look at possible middle ground. ARod is a very good QB RIGHT NOW, but he is not peyton or brady. He might develope into that with a bit more time, and I would say he is on par with peyton in his 2nd season starting. Not all of the ills are his fault, but he isn't immune to criticism either.

Early on MM had abandoned the run and let the D know it and it caused us no end of problems. Right now ARod is playing smarter, MM is calling a better game, and the OL is looking...well, not completely retarded to quote skinbasket. The NFL is an eb and flow and you have to adjust....its looking good now, but I'm not dumb enough to think things could go bad just as easily.

One big problem with posters/fans is they/we like to see things and form a rock solid opinion without thinking middle ground. Outflow saw a team playing poorly and couldn't look past it at the talent and imagine a scenario where we finish 10-6. You saw BF throw a mountain of picks and couldn't see how replacing him could hurt. I saw Crosby miss badly from 50+ and two game winners and decided he wasn't that good. We ALL over react at times.

Anyway, take a deep breath, props on your newfound respect for BF's talent (hopefully not his person) but believe it, we have a very good NFL QB on our team and he is going to be top 5-7 in the league for a long time. There will be rough spots, but hey, that is why the other team gets paid too...we could be Redskin fans after all.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Makes the drive tougher, but doesn't end it.

Thanks, Confucius. Just like a hold on 1st down doesn't technically end a drive but a great majority of the time it ends in a punt.

If you don't see how sacks on 1st down turns into a lot of punts, I'm sorry, but don't expect another response from me.

Sorry oh great one. :roll: Maybe sometime you should say what you mean next time.

I never said that taking a sack doesn't result in a greater chance of punting. Nice try putting words in my mouth just to make yourself look better.

[RashanGary]

Go listen to the Rome Rodgers interview. Rodgers just said everything I just said.

Just like a DL looks bad on a pass play when he's playing the run first, he looks great on a pass play when he's going at the QB's head. It's a concept, I think some people have a hard time grasping, but it was nice to hear someone who knows a lot more than us about the situation agree with me.

[Waldo]

Something was just wrong. They made it way too hard on the OL. That's my perception.

I agree. They KNEW that the OL's pass protection was the weak point of the offense, and yet seemed to do nothing at all to take the pressure off of them. It would be like having a weak-armed QB and just ignoring that fact, calling lots of deep bombs anyway, instead of going for high percentage short passes. I think the blame can be spread around all over, from the line, to McCarthy, to Rodgers, to the WRs, etc.

Almost every pass play call has a hot, a deep, a mid range, and a check down. Each play has built in protections based on what the QB sees at the line and the alignement that the QB and C see. The QB chooses his read progression based on the D, and calls the protection at the line.

It is Aaron's choice, based on how he reads the D, when and where to throw the ball. He's been riskier with his throws as a late (as far as window size), and has notably been trying to get it out faster, but I don't think that we are seeing much change to the plays called.

When Aaron stood there holding it, it isn't like McCathy called an all go. You could always see underneath stuff open that Aaron was ignoring. And he's been sacked A LOT by free rushers. Typically a free rusher is the QB's man (not enough blockers for rushers; block inside out, set the edge free, and fire hot his direction), the WR always checks for a free rusher and adjusts hot that side if he sees one. In other words, Aaron should see the free rusher and fire hot behind him. He should recognize this immediately by the first step of the lineman, and know whether there is a free guy or not early in his drop. If the WR fails to adjust hot (a reason that Jones doesn't see the field a whole lot, he has screwed that up a lot), the QB has to fire at his feet, there is no other option.

[RashanGary]

Almost every pass play call has a hot, a deep, a mid range, and a check down. Each play has built in protections based on what the QB sees at the line and the alignement that the QB and C see. The QB chooses his read progression based on the D, and calls the protection at the line.

It is Aaron's choice, based on how he reads the D, when and where to throw the ball. He's been riskier with his throws as a late (as far as window size), and has notably been trying to get it out faster, but I don't think that we are seeing much change to the plays called.

When Aaron stood there holding it, it isn't like McCathy called an all go. You could always see underneath stuff open that Aaron was ignoring. And he's been sacked A LOT by free rushers. Typically a free rusher is the QB's man (not enough blockers for rushers; block inside out, set the edge free, and fire hot his direction), the WR always checks for a free rusher and adjusts hot that side if he sees one. In other words, Aaron should see the free rusher and fire hot behind him. He should recognize this immediately by the first step of the lineman, and know whether there is a free guy or not early in his drop. If the WR fails to adjust hot (a reason that Jones doesn't see the field a whole lot, he has screwed that up a lot), the QB has to fire at his feet, there is no other option.

This is my understanding too. I, personally, blame MM more than Rodgers but I know at one point MM was trying to get Rodgers to adjust and Rodgers was being stubborn. MM would say it has to come out quicker and AR would say, "I'm nto going to change". I think it was before teh Tampa game.

Maybe it was just a lesson Aaron needed to learn on his own. I know I don't just blindly listen. If I believed what I was doing was right, I'd do the same thing Aaron did until I believed in waht the coach was saying.

[pbmax]

If you want to go dig up a stat, go count how many times Rodgers got sacked that ended up in a punt during that set of downs.


That will show you what the Sacks have done to this team.
What are we debating? No one fails to understand the deleterious effect that sacks and pre-snap penalties have on an offense.

I thought we were arguing where the failure lies. And the first failure is on the O line which had been horrible at pass blocking. And now may be average. Rodgers made this worse by holding onto the ball too long in some instances. But lets emphasize SOME instances. Rodgers has had time and failed to throw 25% of the time according to data presented before the Cowboys game.

As for the other point about running, the current Packer run pass ratio is 44/56. That is pretty balanced for the McCarthy era. It was also balanced for Holmgren. I do not have the stats for a down by down breakdown.

[RashanGary]

I thought we were arguing where the failure lies. And the first failure is on the O line which had been horrible at pass blocking. And now may be average.
.

Well, you're arguing with Aaron Rodgers too because he jsut said teh playcalling took pressure of the OL and him getting the ball out quicker was a big part of it.

But if it's just the OL, fine, you have evidence to support that. I disagree, but that's OK too. We have the right to disagree. The QB and coach change and teh OL magically gets better. If you want to believe that, that's yoru choice. I don't have to.

[bobblehead]

The only thing I disagree with you about Waldo, is the part about rodgers getting sacke a lot by free rushers. Sure it has happened, but not THAT often. More often I saw Babre getting blown up, I saw spitz, college, and Cliffy get blown up at times (even sitton once that i recall). I would say ARod is responsible for about 30% of the sacks this year, but that is a guess. Without a top down view of a play I can only guess at that % but I would put money on it being between 25-35%.

I still think he is unquestionably a top 10 QB, and more like 5-7. I think in years to come he will be perennialy top 5. Time will tell, but I like my track record overall.

[RashanGary]

And I think the OL is partially responsible. They're a very average group that was put in a horrible situaiton by a coach and QB.

They're certainly not great, but they're a lot better if you don't put them in the worst possible situation. That's on Aaron and Mike and as this season goes on and you get more quotes, you'll believe it too.

I listen to every word that is said by the Packers and I know most of the people here don't. You might think you have the asnwers, but my info is better researched, more informed and maybe even better reasoned than most here.

[ThunderDan]

I thought we were arguing where the failure lies. And the first failure is on the O line which had been horrible at pass blocking. And now may be average.
.

Well, you're arguing with Aaron Rodgers too because he jsut said teh playcalling took pressure of the OL and him getting the ball out quicker was a big part of it.

But if it's just the OL, fine, you have evidence to support that. I disagree, but that's OK too. We have the right to disagree. The QB and coach change and teh OL magically gets better. If you want to believe that, that's yoru choice. I don't have to.

Once again from the other thread; if the O-Line was playing good why all of a sudden do they need to change play calls? It's because our coach FINALLY figured out that the O-Line is a weakness and made adjustments to cover for it.

[Waldo]

Maybe it was just a lesson Aaron needed to learn on his own. I know I don't just blindly listen. If I believed what I was doing was right, I'd do the same thing Aaron did until I believed in waht the coach was saying.

This. I think that his hand can only be held so far. MM can open the door to the room of the elites, and let Aaron look inside, but Aaron himself is the only one that can step through that door.

Personally though I think that MM was creating a bit of purposeful hardship. I feel very much, and have since early in the year, that Aaron is really on the cusp of greatness, and that McCarthy sees this, that he is willing to create an especially advanced coaching situation for Aaron that can only be done in live games, in order to help Aaron step through that door. Aaron has to find a way to overcome his personal weakness (a tendency to hold the ball too long). Two ways of looking at going about doing that. Either call no/few plays that give him the chance to show his weakness (run and hide from the weakness), or call a lot of plays that give him a chance to show his weakness, to force him to adapt and play beyond it (destroy the weakness).

[RashanGary]

Once again from the other thread; if the O-Line was playing good why all of a sudden do they need to change play calls? It's because our coach FINALLY figured out that the O-Line is a weakness and made adjustments to cover for it.


You might be right, but it's funny how they change and it magically gets better. OL is doing great now. Running well, no sacks. Funny how that works. The Packers are saying it, why won't you?

[ThunderDan]

Once again from the other thread; if the O-Line was playing good why all of a sudden do they need to change play calls? It's because our coach FINALLY figured out that the O-Line is a weakness and made adjustments to cover for it.


You might be right, but it's funny how they change and it magically gets better. OL is doing great now. Running well, no sacks. Funny how that works. The Packers are saying it, why won't you?

Funny that they needed to change, made the change and now are seeing positive results.

[RashanGary]

This. I think that his hand can only be held so far. MM can open the door to the room of the elites, and let Aaron look inside, but Aaron himself is the only one that can step through that door.

Personally though I think that MM was creating a bit of purposeful hardship. I feel very much, and have since early in the year, that Aaron is really on the cusp of greatness, and that McCarthy sees this, that he is willing to create an especially advanced coaching situation for Aaron that can only be done in live games, in order to help Aaron step through that door. Aaron has to find a way to overcome his personal weakness (a tendency to hold the ball too long). Two ways of looking at going about doing that. Either call no/few plays that give him the chance to show his weakness (run and hide from the weakness), or call a lot of plays that give him a chance to show his weakness, to force him to adapt and play beyond it (destroy the weakness).

Very good point. If it works out that way (and it very well could), we're going to be a happy group of Packer fans.

[pbmax]

I thought we were arguing where the failure lies. And the first failure is on the O line which had been horrible at pass blocking. And now may be average.
.

Well, you're arguing with Aaron Rodgers too because he jsut said teh playcalling took pressure of the OL and him getting the ball out quicker was a big part of it.

But if it's just the OL, fine, you have evidence to support that. I disagree, but that's OK too. We have the right to disagree. The QB and coach change and teh OL magically gets better. If you want to believe that, that's yoru choice. I don't have to.
How has this become a point of contention? If the QB and the coach decide to run more screens, and emphasize throwing the checkdown, then the line IS going to look better if pass blocking is their problem. There is nothing magical about it, they just have to hold their guy off for less time.

If the QB is holding the ball too long, he is going to ADD to the problem by not taking advantage of plays where his protection holds up.

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.

Tauscher and Lang also make this difficult to quantitfy, as their insertion into the lineup did make the line better as pass blocking.

[RashanGary]

Funny that they needed to change, made the change and now are seeing positive results.

8 games later. Look, I'm happy they changed. I think everyone's learned from this first half of the year. Waldo makes a great point and has me considering a better case scenerio that also matches with the things Aaron and Mike have said this year. I can tell Waldo listens to every word because his posts make sense.

Many here hating on teh OL are just wrong. They're not great but they're not bad either. This last 3 weeks is who they are when put in posiiton to succeed.

[ThunderDan]

Once again from the other thread; if the O-Line was playing good why all of a sudden do they need to change play calls? It's because our coach FINALLY figured out that the O-Line is a weakness and made adjustments to cover for it.


You might be right, but it's funny how they change and it magically gets better. OL is doing great now. Running well, no sacks. Funny how that works. The Packers are saying it, why won't you?

ARod would never throw the O-Line or maybe more importantly MM under the bus.

I've been calling for a return to the "true" West Coast Offense since game 1 of the season.

[sharpe1027]

You could always see underneath stuff open that Aaron was ignoring.

If there are 3 to 4 routes being run, which option is the dump off? If it is the 3rd or 4th option, how much time does it take to go through each read? Assuming the first WR takes a second or more to run the first route, how much time is expected for the QB to go through all the progressions?

I have no doubt that there were plenty of times that Rodgers held the ball for a long time. However, I see other QBs do the same thing and only get sacked occasionally. A QB should be able to sometimes hold the ball a little longer. With the OL of the Packers, however, it was an almost guaranteed sack.

The past couple games people are all about Rodger's quick passes, yet several times he stood back there for a very long time before completing a pass. Share some of the blame is fine, but the difference, IMO, still starts and ends with the Oline.

[ThunderDan]

Funny that they needed to change, made the change and now are seeing positive results.

8 games later. Look, I'm happy they changed. I think everyone's learned from this first half of the year. Waldo makes a great point and has me considering a better case scenerio that also matches with the things Aaron and Mike have said this year. I can tell Waldo listens to every word because his posts make sense.

Many here hating on teh OL are just wrong. They're not great but they're not bad either. This last 3 weeks is who they are when put in posiiton to succeed.

And it is on the coach to put the O-Line in a position where they can succeed. MM finally realized this and we win 3 in a row.

[pbmax]

Once again from the other thread; if the O-Line was playing good why all of a sudden do they need to change play calls? It's because our coach FINALLY figured out that the O-Line is a weakness and made adjustments to cover for it.


You might be right, but it's funny how they change and it magically gets better. OL is doing great now. Running well, no sacks. Funny how that works. The Packers are saying it, why won't you?

ARod would never throw the O-Line or maybe more importantly MM under the bus.

I've been calling for a return to the "true" West Coast Offense since game 1 of the season.

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

[RashanGary]

How has this become a point of contention? If the QB and the coach decide to run more screens, and emphasize throwing the checkdown, then the line IS going to look better if pass blocking is their problem. There is nothing magical about it, they just have to hold their guy off for less time.

If the QB is holding the ball too long, he is going to ADD to the problem by not taking advantage of plays where his protection holds up.

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.

Tauscher and Lang also make this difficult to quantitfy, as their insertion into the lineup did make the line better as pass blocking.

You say it's normal to have to protect with very few plays called to slow down the rush. The OL is doing a great job with the deep stuff now too. Defenses can't just go at the QB's head any more. That's teh biggest difference according to Rodgers. Maybe you'll belielve it when you hear it. You just don't follow as closely as me so you're a step behind me.

[Waldo]

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.
I recall Aaron being unaffectionately dubbed "the checkdown king" prior to him taking over at QB. Enough so that many questioned his ability to drive the S's deep in alignment, so that the short stuff and run stays open.

A QB that checks down too much and throws short too much, is a QB about to throw a lot of pick 6's and have no running game.

[RashanGary]

Bottom line, when you run well and slow down the rush with short plays, the deep stuff becomes easy. dL are afraid to get burned with a run or screen, so the don't come 1000 miles/hr and bam, the deep ones are open too.

It's not magic, the oL's improvement. IT's just not.

[pbmax]

Many here hating on teh OL are just wrong. They're not great but they're not bad either. This last 3 weeks is who they are when put in posiiton to succeed.
A line that was on a pace for a non Randall Cunningham league sack record is not average at pass blocking. Even subtracting the 25% that belongs on the shoulders of the QB, its a bad performance. There are several reasons; Barbre was not ready to pass block at tackle, Clifton got injured, Colledge is still wildly inconsistent and Spitz got hurt. Then they discover Lang can play both tackles better than any other backup and Tauscher gets healthy. They may now be average, but I am still not convinced of that.

[RashanGary]

And for that matter, it's not magic taht a group that has a history of pass protecting well just suddenly sucked. None of that is magic. All of it has a reason beyond "this guy just sucks now".

[ThunderDan]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

[RashanGary]

Many here hating on teh OL are just wrong. They're not great but they're not bad either. This last 3 weeks is who they are when put in posiiton to succeed.
A line that was on a pace for a non Randall Cunningham league sack record is not average at pass blocking. Even subtracting the 25% that belongs on the shoulders of the QB, its a bad performance. There are several reasons; Barbre was not ready to pass block at tackle, Clifton got injured, Colledge is still wildly inconsistent and Spitz got hurt. Then they discover Lang can play both tackles better than any other backup and Tauscher gets healthy. They may now be average, but I am still not convinced of that.

haha. Whatever :) We just disagree. Let's see how many sacks occur after teh change (three weeks ago). It's right back to what we're used to.

[RashanGary]

I love what they're doing now.

Runs (and really freaking good ones lately)
Short passes
Screens
Middle passes
Deep passes

And the magical part of all of it is that they're even protecting good on teh deep ones now (funny how that happens when you slow down the rush)


Before you saw few runs
few short passes
no screens
a bunch of middle passes
a bunch of deep passes

It's not wonder teams were coming at Rodgers head, honestly. Hey, they've learned. I'm excited, but I'm not pretending the last 8 games didn't happen and I'm not blaming it all on teh OL or even most of it. If the OL just sucked, we'd have no answer. That's not what we have here. There is an answer.

[pbmax]

How has this become a point of contention? If the QB and the coach decide to run more screens, and emphasize throwing the checkdown, then the line IS going to look better if pass blocking is their problem. There is nothing magical about it, they just have to hold their guy off for less time.

If the QB is holding the ball too long, he is going to ADD to the problem by not taking advantage of plays where his protection holds up.

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.

Tauscher and Lang also make this difficult to quantitfy, as their insertion into the lineup did make the line better as pass blocking.

You say it's normal to have to protect with very few plays called to slow down the rush. The OL is doing a great job with the deep stuff now too. Defenses can't just go at the QB's head any more. That's teh biggest difference according to Rodgers. Maybe you'll belielve it when you hear it. You just don't follow as closely as me so you're a step behind me.
Just a wise pre-caution while watching a man step off a cliff. :lol:

Seven sacks in last three games and at least one QB fumble on those hits. Seems like that average O line still is having issues, new gameplan or not. That projects to 38 for the year. Not a healthy target to shoot for. Especially when one of the games was against the ghastly Lions defense.

McCarthy didn't run screens with the 2007 offense. So it would seem his O can run without all the extra attention to the line's struggles. Favre certainly helped as well.

[bobblehead]

And for that matter, it's not magic taht a group that has a history of pass protecting well just suddenly sucked. None of that is magic. All of it has a reason beyond "this guy just sucks now".

Well, it sort of is just "magic". We replaced a rock of Mark Tauscher with an inept, and Cliffy got old in a hurry...it was happening last season already. When both of your tackles aren't the same player they were you "magically" get much worse at pass blocking....its not like it was the same 5 as last year....it wasn't even close.

This year. Cliffy, College, Spitz, Sitton, Babre

Last year Cliffy, College, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher

Not the same....and add in cliffys fall off, not even close.

[pbmax]

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.
I recall Aaron being unaffectionately dubbed "the checkdown king" prior to him taking over at QB. Enough so that many questioned his ability to drive the S's deep in alignment, so that the short stuff and run stays open.

A QB that checks down too much and throws short too much, is a QB about to throw a lot of pick 6's and have no running game.
No doubt about it. He is more of a QB than advertised and that is saying something for a QB with top half of the first round draft grades.

The checkdown king stuff was from his early pre-season games, mop up games and very early in his first starting season as I am sure you know. As 2008 went along, it was clear he was more than that.

In fact, I suspect that McCarthy's plans for this year were based very much on his ability and willingness to go deep with accuracy. Seeing it all shot to hell on protection had to give him pause. I think the building collapsed in two stages. Rodgers slowly lost his poise in the pocket and his internal clock was damaged by the very early pressure he was getting in the first few games. Whatever corrections or improvements the line was able to make were lost when he started to hold onto the ball unwisely.

My guess is that there were serious attempts to correct both in the normal manner, but after Tampa it became clear the season was at risk and there was no time to adjust in the normal manner. That's when the season game plan was chucked and M3 went more conservative. Not completely conservative, but with a thought to establishing protection for his QB and his line. Tauscher and Lang helped as well.

Speaking of Lang, has anyone counted the number of quality starts by T2's 2009 draft class? :lol:

[Waldo]

Bottom line, when you run well and slow down the rush with short plays, the deep stuff becomes easy. dL are afraid to get burned with a run or screen, so the don't come 1000 miles/hr and bam, the deep ones are open too.

It's not magic, the oL's improvement. IT's just not.

That might happen. Offenses and defenses are slow to "adjust" for the exact reason that smart teams have plan A and plan B. Plan B is what they do best and can levy big damage with. Plan A will force an adjustment that opens up plan B. When you can't stop plan A, adjusting to it and stopping it, half the time will only make matters worse for you.

Little things tell you how opponents respect certain things. Two way gos for example on the DL. Edge rushers that go outside have no respect for the draw if there is not a inside dog/blitz called. SS alignment. If the QB is hot, he'll have to walk back to the deep hash. If the run is hot, he'll play in the outer box or in the box (pretty rare nowadays, SS's are more athletic and teams better at torching it with the pass). If the QB likes to check down or throw slants and quick stuff, the SS will be closer and out wider than the tackle box. On many teams, a deep mike/mack indicates a fear of the TE. A team that marches both safeties up to slightly deeper than the mike/mack, and plays them wider than the box, has zero respect for your deep passing game.

When yo say do X and it causes Y, really only half the time at most does that reaction take place.

You've got DC's like Dom, that call to situation, that can be terribly frustrating for OC's to crack. Dom doesn't typically adjust to his opponent during the game. He tends to stick to situation. He's got a 3rd and 8 call at the 50 midway through the 2nd, and it doesn't matter what you try to show, Dom's call is tailored to stopping what you most likely want to do given the situation, not what it looks like you want to do. Even if it means being in seemingly the wrong personnel group for who the O has out there, Dom's method is effective (a few other play callers in the league are like this, Lovie and Rex Ryan are notably like this too, whereas other guys are strict substitution guys, and play who you've got on the field (Lebeau is like this)).

[sharpe1027]

And for that matter, it's not magic taht a group that has a history of pass protecting well just suddenly sucked. None of that is magic. All of it has a reason beyond "this guy just sucks now".

Having Clifton and Tauscher replaced by the likes of Barbre and Colledge were responsible for a lot of those sacks. You're right though, nothing magical about it...once Cliffy and Tausch got healthy, they have improved considerably. :lol:

[RashanGary]

Just with Aaron Rodgers, I want teh record to show that I'm more disappointed in McCarthy than Rodgers. Rodgers has some lessons to learn, but he has a chance to be a truely great player, maybe the best QB in the league for a span.

I was wrong about how quickly it would all come together, but I'm not convinced it won't either. In fact, it might all be coming together before our eyes. It jsut wasn't together from day one and it had an impact on us that I didn't expect so I was wrong on how quickly he'd replace the last guy.

McCarthy now, that will take more time than I have right now. I have severe doubts about him as a person and as a coach.

[Cheesehead Craig]

JH -
Just want to get some clarification:

1 - You don't like MM as a HC and feel that he is holding this team back due to that he doesn't run the ball enough.

2 - ARod is already a good QB and is becoming very good now and simply wasn't in the very good category prior to the Dallas game (where the win streak and the warm fuzzy's started for everyone) as most here declared.

3 - The OL is good but just put in poor situations due to MM's playcalling and ARod holding the ball too long.

Not looking to trap you or anything like that. Just want to get where you're coming from.

[Smidgeon]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

[Waldo]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

[RashanGary]

JH -
Just want to get some clarification:

1 - You don't like MM as a HC and feel that he is holding this team back due to that he doesn't run the ball enough. (didn't throw short enough or keep the pass rush off balance either but generally not happy with how the offense has performed, specifically in taking too many sacks with no adjustment until week 9 or 10 and I share that blame between MM and AR but AR should be expected to learn so it's not as bad with him)

2 - ARod is already a good QB and is becoming very good now and simply wasn't in the very good category prior to the Dallas game (where the win streak and the warm fuzzy's started for everyone) as most here declared. Pretty much, yeah. He was just solid, but way too hot cold until recently. He has a chance to be one of the greatest QB's in packer history with the talent he's shown and the big plays he's made. People saying he was playing great "me included" were wrong until the last three games IMO. He did make a lot of great plays, but way too many bad ones to go with them.


3 - The OL is good but just put in poor situations due to MM's playcalling and ARod holding the ball too long. I think the OL is average, but was being asked to be elite. I think they've proven they are not elite, but are also not horrible. Average. But yeah, the looked worse becasue of the position they were in and I think MM/AR put them in that tough spot.

Not looking to trap you or anything like that. Just want to get where you're coming from.

Bolded to clarify a little, but yeah, I think you had my general feelings pretty well captured there. And these are opinions that can easily change as more evidence is presented. I like to give my opinions as they evolve though and that's it for now.

[Smidgeon]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

Not quite. I like keeping many of the primary WCO traits like slants, screens, checkdowns, etc, but with AR's ability to place a pass where only the receiver can get it way down the field, I'm really cool with more deep shots than the WCO typically runs.

[RashanGary]

Let's put it this way:

A play caller not calling plays to slow down a pass rush is to an offensive line trying to do it's job as an offensive lineman just missing his block is to a running back trying to do his job.

It just makes the job harder.

[Waldo]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

Not quite. I like keeping many of the primary WCO traits like slants, screens, checkdowns, etc, but with AR's ability to place a pass where only the receiver can get it way down the field, I'm really cool with more deep shots than the WCO typically runs.

The Air Coryell was the original WCO, including the name. When Walsh developed his offense, he was basically copying the principles of the Air Coryell, but he had a QB ill suited to the deep timing throws, instead he went with shorter timing throws. As he ran it, he found as a playcaller that he could call these passes in run situations. When he switched teams and implemented it in SF, the Run-Pass ratio shift caused him to seek out a pass blockers for his line, their natural athleticism lent themselves to screen plays, which he added, along with a basic zone running scheme.

In short, the WCO is the Air Coryell and the Walsh offense, really the trait that defines a WCO is the timing pass, whether a quick timing pass, or a slow timing pass.

[Smidgeon]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

Not quite. I like keeping many of the primary WCO traits like slants, screens, checkdowns, etc, but with AR's ability to place a pass where only the receiver can get it way down the field, I'm really cool with more deep shots than the WCO typically runs.

The Air Coryell was the original WCO, including the name. When Walsh developed his offense, he was basically copying the principles of the Air Coryell, but he had a QB ill suited to the deep timing throws, instead he went with shorter timing throws. As he ran it, he found as a playcaller that he could call these passes in run situations. When he switched teams and implemented it in SF, the Run-Pass ratio shift caused him to seek out a pass blockers for his line, their natural athleticism lent themselves to screen plays, which he added, along with a basic zone running scheme.

In short, the WCO is the Air Coryell and the Walsh offense, really the trait that defines a WCO is the timing pass, whether a quick timing pass, or a slow timing pass.

Yet further showing me up due to your football knowledge. Knock it off before I look really bad. ;)

Seriously, that's pretty fascinating. So where does Martz fit into this? Does he still specialize in the "original"?

[pbmax]

Let's put it this way:

A play caller not calling plays to slow down a pass rush is to an offensive line trying to do it's job as an offensive lineman just missing his block is to a running back trying to do his job.

It just makes the job harder.
Good offensive lines don't need the help against all but the best pass rushes. This group needed help against everybody.

As for your contention that its ridiculous that this O line "suddenly" got worse ignores the differences between 07, 08 and 09. Tauscher (pre-injury) and Clifton in 2008 had their worst pass blocking seasons since their rookie campaigns. Colledge has struggled with his pass blocking since he was a rookie and has rarely been consistent. Both he and Wells can be moved back. Sitton is improving, but he has had his misses just as Spitz did as a in his first two year. And Barbre was a catastrophe in pass blocking. He got slightly better (and I think he can improve to be a starter) but is not yet ready for NFL pass blocking. Even now Tauscher, while back and an improvement, is still not 100%.

No matter the point of comparison (09 with 08 or 07), this line pass blocks worse than its predecessors.

[Cheesehead Craig]

JH -
Just want to get some clarification:

1 - You don't like MM as a HC and feel that he is holding this team back due to that he doesn't run the ball enough. (didn't throw short enough or keep the pass rush off balance either but generally not happy with how the offense has performed, specifically in taking too many sacks with no adjustment until week 9 or 10 and I share that blame between MM and AR but AR should be expected to learn so it's not as bad with him)

2 - ARod is already a good QB and is becoming very good now and simply wasn't in the very good category prior to the Dallas game (where the win streak and the warm fuzzy's started for everyone) as most here declared. Pretty much, yeah. He was just solid, but way too hot cold until recently. He has a chance to be one of the greatest QB's in packer history with the talent he's shown and the big plays he's made. People saying he was playing great "me included" were wrong until the last three games IMO. He did make a lot of great plays, but way too many bad ones to go with them.


3 - The OL is good but just put in poor situations due to MM's playcalling and ARod holding the ball too long. I think the OL is average, but was being asked to be elite. I think they've proven they are not elite, but are also not horrible. Average. But yeah, the looked worse becasue of the position they were in and I think MM/AR put them in that tough spot.

Not looking to trap you or anything like that. Just want to get where you're coming from.

Bolded to clarify a little, but yeah, I think you had my general feelings pretty well captured there. And these are opinions that can easily change as more evidence is presented. I like to give my opinions as they evolve though and that's it for now.

Thanks! I thought I had the basics down. Now I understand you better and for some of it, I agree with you. I disagree about the line as I believe that they overall have been poor but better lately. But we'll agree to disagree about that.

[pbmax]

The Air Coryell was the original WCO, including the name. When Walsh developed his offense, he was basically copying the principles of the Air Coryell, but he had a QB ill suited to the deep timing throws, instead he went with shorter timing throws. As he ran it, he found as a playcaller that he could call these passes in run situations. When he switched teams and implemented it in SF, the Run-Pass ratio shift caused him to seek out a pass blockers for his line, their natural athleticism lent themselves to screen plays, which he added, along with a basic zone running scheme.

In short, the WCO is the Air Coryell and the Walsh offense, really the trait that defines a WCO is the timing pass, whether a quick timing pass, or a slow timing pass.
In the most kind was possible, I am calling bullshit on this.

Walsh got his start in pro coaching with the Raiders in 1966, and Al Davis was not running a Air Coryell offense. He was running a Sid Gillman offense. Walsh coached the running backs and was there one year.

Then he moved to the Paul Brown offense with the Bengals for seven years. Ken Anderson (even after Walsh left) and the Bengals ran a more similar offense to the Walsh Offense than anything Gillman or Coryell ran at the time.

Coryell started as a pro coach in 1973, but as Coach of San Diego St. prior to that, would take his entire staff (and I have read, his entire team) to the Chargers practices to watch the offense at work.

There is more Brown in Walsh's offense than there is Gillman. Though later iterations of the Walsh Offense are far more vertical than he was. The naming part of it is legitimate. Gillman had possibly an even more far reaching influence in the pro passing game (Davis, Coryell, Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, Chuck Noll, Cuck Knox, Dick Vermeil, George Allen, Joe Gibbs, Mike Martz). Gillman should be credited with the first West Coast Offense. Walsh's should have been given a different moniker.

[RashanGary]

Let's put it this way:

A play caller not calling plays to slow down a pass rush is to an offensive line trying to do it's job as an offensive lineman just missing his block is to a running back trying to do his job.

It just makes the job harder.
Good offensive lines don't need the help against all but the best pass rushes. This group needed help against everybody.

As for your contention that its ridiculous that this O line "suddenly" got worse ignores the differences between 07, 08 and 09. Tauscher (pre-injury) and Clifton in 2008 had their worst pass blocking seasons since their rookie campaigns. Colledge has struggled with his pass blocking since he was a rookie and has rarely been consistent. Both he and Wells can be moved back. Sitton is improving, but he has had his misses just as Spitz did as a in his first two year. And Barbre was a catastrophe in pass blocking. He got slightly better (and I think he can improve to be a starter) but is not yet ready for NFL pass blocking. Even now Tauscher, while back and an improvement, is still not 100%.

No matter the point of comparison (09 with 08 or 07), this line pass blocks worse than its predecessors.

The problem with Tauscher being "so much better" is that he came back right when they changed philosophy to the shorter passes and runs. It could be either. I'm open to that. I tend to think it's more AR/MM and you tend to think it's more the OL. I say it was fixed because of changes in focus, you say it changed because Taush is back. Points can be made for both.


If I had to toss blame for the first 8 games, I'd go like this

33% OL Not being good enough
33% QB Not gettnig rid of the ball quick enough
33% Play caller not keeping the defenses off balance and expecting more than his OL is capable of delivering and taking way too long to recognize it wasn't working.


The last three games, I don't think the QB or playcaller have made the problem worse. The OL is still not good enough, but because their being put in position to succeed, we're winning with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a star LT. One star LT changes the whole complexion of this line with Lang showing promise of being the RT of the future and the decent interior guys we have. I don't think they're horrible. I think we can win with these guys right now. If we had great ST's and defense, I think this offense is even capable of winning it all but going forward, as a team, we have to find a way to get better and OL is definitely a group that can get better.

[Brandon494]

AR did hold onto the balls for too long at times but the O-line was HORRIBLE the first half of the season. College has stepped his game up since being warned he might lose his job and the addition of Lang has really helped. Also replacing Barbre with Tausher is a huge plus. Yes AR is getting rid of the ball faster but on that 68 yard pass to Driver against the Lions AR held the ball for 6-7 seconds and had time to step into his throw. If Barbre was still starting at RT over Tausher that play is 10 yard loss instead of a 68 yard gain.

[sharpe1027]

The problem with Tauscher being "so much better" is that he came back right when they changed philosophy to the shorter passes and runs. It could be either. I'm open to that. I tend to think it's more AR/MM and you tend to think it's more the OL. I say it was fixed because of changes in focus, you say it changed because Taush is back. Points can be made for both.


If I had to toss blame for the first 8 games, I'd go like this

33% OL Not being good enough
33% QB Not gettnig rid of the ball quick enough
33% Play caller not keeping the defenses off balance and expecting more than his OL is capable of delivering and taking way too long to recognize it wasn't working.


The last three games, I don't think the QB or playcaller have made the problem worse. The OL is still not good enough, but because their being put in position to succeed, we're winning with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a star LT. One star LT changes the whole complexion of this line with Lang showing promise of being the RT of the future and the decent interior guys we have. I don't think they're horrible. I think we can win with these guys right now. If we had great ST's and defense, I think this offense is even capable of winning it all but going forward, as a team, we have to find a way to get better and OL is definitely a group that can get better.

For the first seven games, I disagree with anything that allocates less than 70% to the O-line. They couldn't protect against a four man rush even when they got help from backs and TEs. It was really bad.

It wasn't just that they got beat a few times, it was that they got beat consistently. They were on pace to obliterate the season sack record. Rodgers also was got hit a lot even when he got rid of the ball, and those didn't show up as sacks.

Frankly, Rodgers probably avoided more sacks than he was responsible for.

[RashanGary]

When defenses can pin their ears back, it's almost impossible to complete a long pass. That's why you see, even the best offenses, throw screens on 3rd and long or draws. They know that the other team is going to come hard and it's going to be really hard to protect against that.

One of the strangest things this year that I still can't quite pin down is how hard teams were rushing our QB on 1st down. Typically teams play the run and pass on 1st down. Tehy don't pin their ears back and come at the QB's head. It was just strange how many times teams were sending their DE's straight up field.

I have a couple theories as to why. The first one was that teams were showing 8 in the box to get Rodgers to check into a run. Then after the snap they would rush the passer like hell and drop into coverage. The other theory developoed more recently is that MM was calling way to few runs, short passes and screens.

The fervour in which teams were aiming for Rodgers head was just shocking to me. Lately we've been gashing team with runs and screens, which has allowed our offense to sustain long, will breaking drives. I just can't believe we didn't start doing it sooner. This was something I've been following from week 1 (the 1st down sacks). It's something I've really paid attention to.

[sharpe1027]

When defenses can pin their ears back, it's almost impossible to complete a long pass. That's why you see, even the best offenses, throw screens on 3rd and long or draws. They know that the other team is going to come hard and it's going to be really hard to protect against that.

One of the strangest things this year that I still can't quite pin down is how hard teams were rushing our QB on 1st down. Typically teams play the run and pass on 1st down. Tehy don't pin their ears back and come at the QB's head. It was just strange how many times teams were sending their DE's straight up field.

I have a couple theories as to why. The first one was that teams were showing 8 in the box to get Rodgers to check into a run. Then after the snap they would rush the passer like hell and drop into coverage. The other theory developoed more recently is that MM was calling way to few runs, short passes and screens.

The fervour in which teams were aiming for Rodgers head was just shocking to me. Lately we've been gashing team with runs and screens, which has allowed our offense to sustain long, will breaking drives. I just can't believe we didn't start doing it sooner. This was something I've been following from week 1 (the 1st down sacks). It's something I've really paid attention to.

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

[RashanGary]

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

Why are they so much better now, all of a sudden?

Clifton, Colledge and Wells have been in the league a while. Did they suddenly get that much better? Sitton has been pretty consistent all year in not giving up a lot of sacks. After week 1, Barbre ddidn't give up many sacks. It was the whole line sucking ass all at once and then fixing it all at once. It all happened to align with the Packers changing their focus from very few short passes, runs and screens to a lot of them. I don't think that was a coincidence and I don't think Mark Tauscher cured the whole line's woes.

[RashanGary]

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

And if this is the case, with veterans like we have on our line all sucking, there is no way it should get better for the rest of the year. Other than Barbre, they sucked then and they shoudl still suck now. Let's not forget, Tauser has given up 2 or 3 of the sacks Rodgers has taken in the last 3 games, Rodgers has only taken a 7 or 8 sacks and Tausher hasn't even played the whole games.

[RashanGary]

Obviously not everyone has to agree, but I think by seasons end and into the offseason, you'll get more and more quotes out of 1265 about them not sticking to what they're good at and learning from that mistake.

[pbmax]

Obviously not everyone has to agree, but I think by seasons end and into the offseason, you'll get more and more quotes out of 1265 about them not sticking to what they're good at and learning from that mistake.
I think its quite likely you will get quotes like that. And then two new starters next year on the O Line. Lang somewhere (LG, RT) and another tackle, possibly two.

[pbmax]

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

And if this is the case, with veterans like we have on our line all sucking, there is no way it should get better for the rest of the year.
No, not this simple. They are being asked to pass block for smaller stretches of time. That is different than being above average pass blockers.

[get louder at lambeau]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks-part-ii

[Waldo]

The Air Coryell was the original WCO, including the name. When Walsh developed his offense, he was basically copying the principles of the Air Coryell, but he had a QB ill suited to the deep timing throws, instead he went with shorter timing throws. As he ran it, he found as a playcaller that he could call these passes in run situations. When he switched teams and implemented it in SF, the Run-Pass ratio shift caused him to seek out a pass blockers for his line, their natural athleticism lent themselves to screen plays, which he added, along with a basic zone running scheme.

In short, the WCO is the Air Coryell and the Walsh offense, really the trait that defines a WCO is the timing pass, whether a quick timing pass, or a slow timing pass.
In the most kind was possible, I am calling bullshit on this.

Walsh got his start in pro coaching with the Raiders in 1966, and Al Davis was not running a Air Coryell offense. He was running a Sid Gillman offense. Walsh coached the running backs and was there one year.

Then he moved to the Paul Brown offense with the Bengals for seven years. Ken Anderson (even after Walsh left) and the Bengals ran a more similar offense to the Walsh Offense than anything Gillman or Coryell ran at the time.

Coryell started as a pro coach in 1973, but as Coach of San Diego St. prior to that, would take his entire staff (and I have read, his entire team) to the Chargers practices to watch the offense at work.

There is more Brown in Walsh's offense than there is Gillman. Though later iterations of the Walsh Offense are far more vertical than he was. The naming part of it is legitimate. Gillman had possibly an even more far reaching influence in the pro passing game (Davis, Coryell, Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, Chuck Noll, Cuck Knox, Dick Vermeil, George Allen, Joe Gibbs, Mike Martz). Gillman should be credited with the first West Coast Offense. Walsh's should have been given a different moniker.


Walsh learned from Gillman when Gillman hired him with the Oakland Raiders. Walsh gives credit to Gillman as being the biggest influence in his early career. Gillman was just one of the numerous pro coaches whom Walsh studied from. Walsh also credits individuals such as Blanton Collier, Al Davis, Don Coryell and Clark Shaughnessy, the legendary Stanford coach and Chicago Bear assistant to George Halas who brought the T formation into college and professional football.


The time Walsh spent with Cincinnati Bengals seemingly gave Walsh a chance to develop his own coaching philosophy and to put them into practical application. At the time, Cincinnati was an expansion team that had Virgil Carter as its quarterback. Virgil Carter was a quarterback who had a great collegiate career at Brigham Young. Virgil Carter was only six feet tall and without a throwing arm, but he was a good runner. Back in those days from film I have seen, the Bengal’s weren't strong enough on the offensive line to be able to run the ball well, Walsh decided that the best chance to win football games was to somehow control the ball. As a result, Walsh devised a ball-control passing game

http://football.calsci.com/WCOHistory2.html

What did he implement? Timing stuff very similar to what Gillman and Coryell were doing, but using much shorter passes, because of his weak armed QB.

When he got to SF and had personnel control, he focused on athleticism for his OL and other parts of it grew from there.


Contrary to popular belief, Bill Walsh’s offensive genius did not begin in San Francisco. Despite the fact that Paul Brown was the offensive coordinator, he tasked his young wide receivers coach, Bill Walsh, with designing the team’s offense. Walsh had just finished his time with Al Davis’ coaching regime in Oakland (yes, 49er fans, our savior did work for the Dark Lord himself) and was well versed in the long-ball approach preferred by Davis. So naturally Walsh took the challenge and developed an offense that made St. Louis’ “Greatest Show on Turf” look like midgets attempting to high jump.

In 1969, with quarterback Greg Cook at the helm, Walsh’s offense was almost unstoppable. Three tight ends on the team averaged over 20 yards per reception. Cook averaged 17.5 yards per completion. How does that compare to current quarterbacks? Peyton Manning, in his record breaking 2004 campaign where he churned out touchdowns like P.Diddy does mediocre bands, only averaged 13.5 yards per completion.

With wins over the eventual world champion Kansas City Chiefs and the playoff-bound Oakland Raiders it looked like the Bengals were on the right path with Cook at the helm of Walsh’s downfield attack.

When Cook, the consummate down field passer with a rocket arm, suffered a career-ending shoulder injury before the 1970 season Walsh had to adjust to a new quarterback with a different skill set. Virgil Carter, a smart, agile, quick, accurate passer with a mediocre arm from Brigham Young, took the helm for the Bengals in 1970. Walsh’s offensive adjustments - shorter passes, timing routes, and an emphasis on the quarterback’s mobility - led to the birth of the offensive revolution that eventually took the 49ers to 5 Super Bowl championships.

So what happened to that long ball approach that was tearing through defenses? What happened to Walsh’s original offense in Cincinnati? Oh, It’s still around. It is the real West Coast Offense. It is the Air Coryell offense that Norv Turner is bringing to San Francisco.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/commentary/view.php?id=482

[bobblehead]

Two different problems. Both can be alleviated by altering the game plan, but both still need to be corrected. Rodgers has proven adaptable to throwing to checkdowns. The line has not proven is can pass block well with regularity.
I recall Aaron being unaffectionately dubbed "the checkdown king" prior to him taking over at QB. Enough so that many questioned his ability to drive the S's deep in alignment, so that the short stuff and run stays open.

A QB that checks down too much and throws short too much, is a QB about to throw a lot of pick 6's and have no running game.
No doubt about it. He is more of a QB than advertised and that is saying something for a QB with top half of the first round draft grades.

The checkdown king stuff was from his early pre-season games, mop up games and very early in his first starting season as I am sure you know. As 2008 went along, it was clear he was more than that.

In fact, I suspect that McCarthy's plans for this year were based very much on his ability and willingness to go deep with accuracy. Seeing it all shot to hell on protection had to give him pause. I think the building collapsed in two stages. Rodgers slowly lost his poise in the pocket and his internal clock was damaged by the very early pressure he was getting in the first few games. Whatever corrections or improvements the line was able to make were lost when he started to hold onto the ball unwisely.

My guess is that there were serious attempts to correct both in the normal manner, but after Tampa it became clear the season was at risk and there was no time to adjust in the normal manner. That's when the season game plan was chucked and M3 went more conservative. Not completely conservative, but with a thought to establishing protection for his QB and his line. Tauscher and Lang helped as well.

Speaking of Lang, has anyone counted the number of quality starts by T2's 2009 draft class? :lol:

Don't feel like pulling out clappy hands, but great post PB. I think if stubby has his way we will look like the old raiders next year....POUND THE ROCK, POUND THE ROCK, throw 70 yards downfield. I haven't seen a QB with ARods deep touch since Jeff Blake (yea, I really went there). I watched the queens the other day, and don't get me wrong, BF is MVP this year so far, but every time he went deep it was off mark. Just not his forte, much like ARod lacks the mentality to throw tight slants, but BF is godly at it.

I agree with all you said though, MM's plans got shot in the ass and it seems he has adjusted well, lets hope it keeps up next monday. I was calling for his head earlier for being stubborn about it, but hey, he might just have righted the ship, and he obviously didn't lose control of his team. Maybe he hangs in there long enough to piss off his detractors yet.

[Rastak]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.

[bobblehead]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

I could be wrong but I thought the whole Martz philosophy was to throw the ball BEFORE a reciever makes his breaks so a DBack never has a chance to defend it. The long catches were more a result of guys breaking off the defense and being gone before anyone knew what happened.

[Waldo]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.

[Rastak]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.


Well, I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing. You can have style points. Keep it away from the safety over the top and continue to rack up the big gains.

[Waldo]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

I could be wrong but I thought the whole Martz philosophy was to throw the ball BEFORE a reciever makes his breaks so a DBack never has a chance to defend it. The long catches were more a result of guys breaking off the defense and being gone before anyone knew what happened.

And Martz got it from Coryell, who learned it from Gillman.

Timing passing.

[Waldo]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.


Well, I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing. You can have style points. Keep it away from the safety over the top and continue to rack up the big gains.

Brett has been a career underthrower. The S isn't the problem, it is the fact that his underthrow goes right to the beaten CB, and not the WR, who has to stop and turn around.

[Rastak]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.


Well, I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing. You can have style points. Keep it away from the safety over the top and continue to rack up the big gains.

Brett has been a career underthrower. The S isn't the problem, it is the fact that his underthrow goes right to the beaten CB, and not the WR, who has to stop and turn around.


I have no idea what you are talking about. He has NOT been primarily underthrowing receivers. You been watching the games? I've seen every play. He's been shading it off to the side more often than not.

[bobblehead]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.

Again, don't want to pollute this thread with BF, but he usually puts it where the safety, reciever, and back judge can't get it. ARod puts it where his reciever fights for it, and the DBack can only break it up. Any long time packer fan will tell you that the long ball is not BF's forte....and chic's STILL dig him.

[bobblehead]

So you want to go back to split backs? :lol:

No, just the Non-Verticle WCO. :)

Personally, I'm okay with the Verticle WCO. AR is one of the most accurate long ball passers in the league, if not the best. His accuracy along the sidelines is ridiculous good. He certainly throws the ball well for having so few long INTs. And that's why I'm okay with it. It's because it's a talent. Why not capitalize on it?

Air Coryell? Like what Martz runs?

I could be wrong but I thought the whole Martz philosophy was to throw the ball BEFORE a reciever makes his breaks so a DBack never has a chance to defend it. The long catches were more a result of guys breaking off the defense and being gone before anyone knew what happened.

And Martz got it from Coryell, who learned it from Gillman.

Timing passing.

Yea, as I read on I realized your main point was timing, not necessarily HOW they used it and it made more sense to me.

[Smidgeon]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.


Well, I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing. You can have style points. Keep it away from the safety over the top and continue to rack up the big gains.

Brett has been a career underthrower. The S isn't the problem, it is the fact that his underthrow goes right to the beaten CB, and not the WR, who has to stop and turn around.


I have no idea what you are talking about. He has NOT been primarily underthrowing receivers. You been watching the games? I've seen every play. He's been shading it off to the side more often than not.

Maybe I can assist. Please see the bolded portion.

[Waldo]

Bobble, most times Favre throws it deep he put it away from the safety and where his guy can make a play. To me that's exactly what you want.
And most of the time his guys have to adjust to it because it isn't very accurate.

At least McCarthy rejuvenated that part of his game.

His deep ball '05 to '06 was an absolute joke, he couldn't hid the broadside of a barn more than 20 yards down the sideline. Even in '07, when he did make big deep throws to the edge, they weren't very accurate. I'm pretty sure that he threw more int's than completions 20+ outside the #'s in '07.

Aaron's WR's put out their arms while running and it just drops right in there.


Well, I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing. You can have style points. Keep it away from the safety over the top and continue to rack up the big gains.

Brett has been a career underthrower. The S isn't the problem, it is the fact that his underthrow goes right to the beaten CB, and not the WR, who has to stop and turn around.


I have no idea what you are talking about. He has NOT been primarily underthrowing receivers. You been watching the games? I've seen every play. He's been shading it off to the side more often than not.

That is what is different about him this year. He has been missing short deep for a good 10 years prior to this year.

Maybe Mn's WR's can't run very fast?

[Rastak]

Edit: Berrian is hurt, Harvin is slot, Rice isn't a burner but has great hands and is starting to shine with the rest of his game.


double edit: I wouldn't feel better if Willie Gault was lining up. I like what they have.

[RashanGary]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks-part-ii

Don't let PB read this. He's convinced AR is 25% responsible for the sacks he takes and nothing will get him off that ledge.


AR learned his lesson though. So did MM. I have a hunch AR will never have more than 35 sacks in an entire season again. I think they all realize the pitfalls of not getting rid of the ball quickly now.

[pbmax]

Walsh learned from Gillman when Gillman hired him with the Oakland Raiders.
Gillman never hired Walsh. Gillman never worked for the Raiders.

Sid Gillman
1955-1959..... NFL Los Angeles Rams
1960............. AFL Los Angeles Chargers
1961-1969..... AFL San Diego Chargers
1970-1971..... NFL San Diego Chargers
1973-1974..... NFL Houston Oilers

Bill Walsh
Oakland Raiders (1966) (Running back coach)
Cincinnati Bengals (1968–1975) (Assistant coach)
San Diego Chargers (1976) (Offensive coordinator)
Stanford Cardinal (1977–1978) (Head Coach)
San Francisco 49ers (1979–1988) (Head coach)

One thing I did not notice, Walsh was offensive coordinator for the Chargers in '76. SD head coach? Tommy Prothro.

Prothro learned the Single Wing offense from Red Sanders at Vanderbilt and UCLA.

[pbmax]

The time Walsh spent with Cincinnati Bengals seemingly gave Walsh a chance to develop his own coaching philosophy and to put them into practical application. At the time, Cincinnati was an expansion team that had Virgil Carter as its quarterback. Virgil Carter was a quarterback who had a great collegiate career at Brigham Young. Virgil Carter was only six feet tall and without a throwing arm, but he was a good runner. Back in those days from film I have seen, the Bengal’s weren't strong enough on the offensive line to be able to run the ball well, Walsh decided that the best chance to win football games was to somehow control the ball. As a result, Walsh devised a ball-control passing game
1968 Bengals QBs
John Stofa 7 starts
Dewey Warren 4 starts
Sam Wyche 3 starts

1969 Bengals QBs
Greg Cook 11 starts
Sam Wyche 3 starts

Virgil Carter did not start a game (or exist on the roster) until Walsh's third season with the Bengals. In 1970 he started 11 games, in 1971 Carter started 10 games while Ken Anderson started 4. Carter was the backup by 1972.

[pbmax]

And I am not so sure about the running game. The Bengals were an expansion team, old school, meaning they stunk. But in two of their first four years, they were in the top half of the league in rushing yards. Doesn't mean they were very good, but they weren't awful every year.

[Bossman641]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks-part-ii

Don't let PB read this. He's convinced AR is 25% responsible for the sacks he takes and nothing will get him off that ledge.


AR learned his lesson though. So did MM. I have a hunch AR will never have more than 35 sacks in an entire season again. I think they all realize the pitfalls of not getting rid of the ball quickly now.

Honestly JH, how can you be so sure you are right and anyone disagreeing is wrong. I put up a post a few weeks ago detailing how long Rodgers held the ball on every pass. About 1/3 of them turned out to be Rodgers' fault.

[get louder at lambeau]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks-part-ii

Don't let PB read this. He's convinced AR is 25% responsible for the sacks he takes and nothing will get him off that ledge.


AR learned his lesson though. So did MM. I have a hunch AR will never have more than 35 sacks in an entire season again. I think they all realize the pitfalls of not getting rid of the ball quickly now.

Honestly JH, how can you be so sure you are right and anyone disagreeing is wrong. I put up a post a few weeks ago detailing how long Rodgers held the ball on every pass. About 1/3 of them turned out to be Rodgers' fault.

I think the main problem here is that everyone is trying to quantify something that isn't definitively quantifiable. Almost no sacks are 100% on one guy. Even when Barbre whiffs like a retard swinging a stick at a pinata, Rodgers may or may not get rid of the ball before he gets hit. There is no way to put an absolute and accurate percentage on blame. 80% on Barbre? 95%? No one can really say, but one player can often make up for the shortcomings of another.

[pbmax]

Contrary to popular belief, Bill Walsh’s offensive genius did not begin in San Francisco. Despite the fact that Paul Brown was the offensive coordinator, he tasked his young wide receivers coach, Bill Walsh, with designing the team’s offense. Walsh had just finished his time with Al Davis’ coaching regime in Oakland (yes, 49er fans, our savior did work for the Dark Lord himself) and was well versed in the long-ball approach preferred by Davis. So naturally Walsh took the challenge and developed an offense that made St. Louis’ “Greatest Show on Turf” look like midgets attempting to high jump.

In 1969, with quarterback Greg Cook at the helm, Walsh’s offense was almost unstoppable. Three tight ends on the team averaged over 20 yards per reception. Cook averaged 17.5 yards per completion. How does that compare to current quarterbacks? Peyton Manning, in his record breaking 2004 campaign where he churned out touchdowns like P.Diddy does mediocre bands, only averaged 13.5 yards per completion.
Yards Per Completion Year by Year Highs
1969 ..........Greg Cook (23)..........17.5..........CIN
..................Craig Morton (26).......16.2..........DAL
1968 ..........Marlin Briscoe (23).....17.1..........DEN
..................Earl Morrall (34).......16.0..........BAL
1967 ..........Bart Starr+ (33)........15.9..........GNB
..................Jack Kemp (32)..........15.5..........BUF
..................Joe Namath+ (24)........15.5..........NYJ
..................John Hadl (27)..........15.5..........SDG
1966 ..........Tom Flores (29).........17.5..........OAK
..................Don Meredith (28).......15.8..........DAL
1965 ..........Don Meredith (27).......17.1..........DAL
..................John Hadl (25)..........16.1..........SDG
1964 ..........Jack Kemp (29)..........19.2..........BUF
..................Johnny Unitas+ (31).....17.9..........BAL
1963 ..........Tom Flores (26).........18.6..........OAK
..................Ed Brown (35)...........17.8..........PIT
1962 ..........Sonny Jurgensen+ (28)...16.6..........PHI
..................Cotton Davidson (31)....16.6..........OAK
1961 ..........George Blanda+ (34).....17.8..........HOU
..................John Brodie (26)........16.7..........SFO
1960 ..........Bobby Layne+ (34).......17.6..........PIT
..................Jack Kemp (25)..........14.3..........LAC
..................George Blanda+ (33).....14.3..........HOU
1959 ..........Charlie Conerly (38)....15.1..........NYG
1958 ..........Bobby Layne+ (32).......17.6..........PIT
1957 ..........Lamar McHan (25)........18.0..........CRD
1956 ..........Ed Brown (28)...........17.4..........CHI
1955 ..........Otto Graham+ (34).......17.6..........CLE
1954 ..........Norm Van Brocklin+ (28).19.0..........RAM
1953 ..........Bobby Layne+ (27).......16.7..........DET
1952 ..........Babe Parilli (22).......18.4..........GNB
1951 ..........Bob Waterfield+ (31)....17.8..........RAM
1950 ..........Norm Van Brocklin+ (24).16.2..........RAM
1949 ..........Otto Graham+ (28).......17.3..........CLE
..................Johnny Lujack (24)......16.4..........CHI
1948 ..........Otto Graham+ (27).......15.7..........CLE
..................Y.A. Tittle+ (22).......15.7..........BCL
..................Bob Waterfield+ (28)....15.6..........RAM
1947 ..........Boley Dancewicz (23)....18.2..........BOS
..................Otto Graham+ (26).......16.9..........CLE

A plus 15 yards per completion average was not unusual for QBs in the 40s, 50s and 60s and was not simply a hallmark of Gillman. Brown, Halas, Lombardi, Landry have QBs on this list in addition to Al Davis and Sid Gillman. Also, Walsh had rocket armed Cook for one season. He had John Stofa for his first year.

Now, having to radically alter an offense with Carter at the helm is perfectly reasonable. But by the time Carter arrives in Cincinnati, Walsh had spent no time with Gillman, one year with Al Davis and two with Paul Brown. And Paul Brown was the Head Coach when that QB arrived for all of 2 years.

As for crediting coaches, Walsh and Brown had a famous falling out after he left the Bengals when Paul Brown kicked himself upstairs. He maintains that after he was hired by the Chargers and Prothro, he found out that Brown had kept possible HC jobs hidden from him and had made calls to league members recommending that he not be hired when he had decided to leave the Bengals.

[pbmax]

And Walsh himself, from Sports Illustrated 1999 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/1999/10/28/inside_football/)


How did the term[West Coast Offense] get its name? From Bernie Kosar, when he was a backup quarterback with Dallas in '93. I was doing a piece on the Cowboys. I asked him what the offense was like.

"Oh, you know, the West Coast Offense," he said. "Turner and Zampese and Don Coryell and Sid Gillman. That thing." (Bernie obviously had a good knowledge of NFL history).

I used the quote. It was picked up by a West Coast wire reporter, except that he got it screwed up and he attached it to the San Francisco attack that Bill Walsh had used in San Francisco's Super Bowl run of the '80s. What the hell -- San Diego, L.A., San Francisco -- it's all West Coast, isn't it? And that's where it stuck.

At first Walsh was quite upset by the misnomer. "Call it the Walsh Offense, or the Cincinnati Offense," he said, "but not the West Coast Offense. That's something completely different."

[Waldo]

Every history of the WCO that I have ever read links the early Walsh offense to what became known as the Coryell offense. That Walsh's started as a variant of it and further evolved from there. That aside from the route depth and play calling (means of attack), that the plays were at one time extremely similar. You are the first person I've ever heard dispute that.

[Rastak]

Every history of the WCO that I have ever read links the early Walsh offense to what became known as the Coryell offense. That Walsh's started as a variant of it and further evolved from there. That aside from the route depth and play calling (means of attack), that the plays were at one time extremely similar. You are the first person I've ever heard dispute that.


And he appears to be right.

[Waldo]

Every history of the WCO that I have ever read links the early Walsh offense to what became known as the Coryell offense. That Walsh's started as a variant of it and further evolved from there. That aside from the route depth and play calling (means of attack), that the plays were at one time extremely similar. You are the first person I've ever heard dispute that.


And he appears to be right.

If you go hunting, you can find A LOT of material that states exactly what I have.

Like the two articles I posted.

Or this one:
http://chi.scout.com/2/641292.html

[pbmax]

One thing about timing routes and a timed passing offense. Norv Turner once came up in a conversation about the evolving Turner WCO at Dallas after Norv had left for Washington. The new coach being interviewed said he could tell Norv had not been around for a while because when he wanted the recevier to run a seven yard route, it had to be a exactly seven yards, not 6.5 or 7.5, because as Norv would have said: "[T]hat's where the ball was going".

Many of Walsh's play calls were for option routes (remember Pass to Daylight, the derisive name given to the Lindy Infante system in Green Bay?), where the receiver could take one of three routes based on how the defense deployed in his area. Walsh used this too. The QB and WR had to be on the same page for this to work.

Favre talked about this on several occasions, and it even came up on his last pass for the Packers when he thought Driver was going to go with one route and he went another. Whether this instance is factual or just a cover for some other failure is immaterial; the expectation was that the receiver could change his route depending on what he read.

There was not the same receiver flexibility in Gillman's West Coast Offense as practiced by Coryell, Gibbs and Turner.

[pbmax]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks-part-ii

Don't let PB read this. He's convinced AR is 25% responsible for the sacks he takes and nothing will get him off that ledge.


AR learned his lesson though. So did MM. I have a hunch AR will never have more than 35 sacks in an entire season again. I think they all realize the pitfalls of not getting rid of the ball quickly now.

Honestly JH, how can you be so sure you are right and anyone disagreeing is wrong. I put up a post a few weeks ago detailing how long Rodgers held the ball on every pass. About 1/3 of them turned out to be Rodgers' fault.
Not to go all Ty on you, but PB read this when it was first published. And a very salient point has been missed. This study looked at what happened when different QBs played behind the same line in the same year.

But that is not the case with Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have the same QB playing with an altered line. So the article's conclusion, that QBs matter as much as the line when considering sacks can still hold true. But it doesn't directly address Rodgers and the 08 and 09 Packers O Line.

One other thing; I am not saying Rodgers has a 25% share of responsibility for sacks. He has been responsible for 25% of the team's sacks (numbers prior to Dallas). This was according to an article linked here at PackerRats that covered the amount of time he had in the pocket. One such article was in JSO but another covered a longer time span.

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?

Some things (like Tauscher's availability) were simply beyond their control. Before then. But you could easily argue that Lang should have been at RT earlier. But even that is problematic after Clifton gets hurt.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

PB,

What EXACTLY is going all Ty on you. Please define going Ty on you?

Just want to make sure it is used correctly...like when someone gets Patlerized.

:wink:

[pbmax]

PB,

What EXACTLY is going all Ty on you. Please define going Ty on you?

Just want to make sure it is used correctly...like when someone gets Patlerized.

:wink:
PB thinks going Ty on you would be liberal use of the third person to emphasize who is talking without needing to use 'I' in each instance. Also a way to state something declaratively yet put some distance between the writer and the speaker. To PB, useful when addressing two people who were addressing me in the 3rd person.

[sharpe1027]

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

And if this is the case, with veterans like we have on our line all sucking, there is no way it should get better for the rest of the year. Other than Barbre, they sucked then and they shoudl still suck now. Let's not forget, Tauser has given up 2 or 3 of the sacks Rodgers has taken in the last 3 games, Rodgers has only taken a 7 or 8 sacks and Tausher hasn't even played the whole games.

No way? How so? Veterans aren't able to play poorly coming off an injury? Guys like Colledge don't have big swings in their play? Tauscher is coming off major knee surgery and couldn't even make it through an entire game. You don't think that getting back into playing shape and strengthening his knee is possible...or that it just won't help.

Explain how it is in the past couple games there were several times that Rodgers has been able to stand back in the pocket for a long time and still have time to get rid of it. If you remember, Favre did the same thing against the Packers when we got no rush.

I watched the games, that's enough for me. I don't really care what kind of convoluted logic you come up with. The O-line play was about as bad as I can ever remember it. For all the times that Rodgers held the ball, he avoided a sack with his feet or a quick throw. There was pressure on him almost every single play, the number of times he got rid of the ball and still got destroyed was very high. You can't throw a quick pass on ever play. The line play was so bad, that's pretty much what would have been required.

[RashanGary]

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?


Much of your post I completely understand and I don't read everythign JS writes becuase I find much of it to be twisted BS so I missed that article.

My question to you would be this; do you think it's possible that McCarthy was asking way too much out of his offensive line in the very beginning, putting them in a very tough position to succeed?

I don't have a choice but to buy Rodgers 25% number. If I had to guess, I would have guessed 1/3. Now splitting up the rest between MM and the line becomes a little tougher. They're run blocking better than they have in half a decade so they don't just "stink". I think they can pass block as good as they have in the last few years too if they went back to what they were doing for the last few years.

There's no question the OL isn't good enough to protect for Aaron the way he needs to do the things they wanted to do this year, but the bigger question is, "can they protect well enough to win" and that answer, I think is a completely different one and one that when answered, points a big finger at McCarthy. There is more than one way to win and there is nothing wrong with winning the way we did in 2007. For us to go back to that offense and suddenly have success, it raises the question, does MM have what it takes to lead this offense to a championship if he can't adjust until we're almost out of it? My hope is that they all learned their lessons and we win with these guys. I'm not giving up, but I have major question about this head coaches stubbornness.

[RashanGary]

I have a lot more optimism for Aaron learning as he's young and should be expected to keep getting better, especially in this area really.

MM, what he did, I don't know if that's a learning situation for him. My gosh he made it tough on those guys. We never had that problem until we went away from the short passes. He's probably trying to play to Rodgers intermediate/deep accuracy, but man, he could have used the shorter stuff to keep pass rushes at bay and mixed in more of the deeper things, couldn't he.

It's all hindsight, but after 3 or 4 games, we all knew beyond a doubt they had to take pressure off the OL and he was saying in his pressers that he was going to do the same thing. That's my main point of contention.

[sharpe1027]

Double post.... :oops:

[pbmax]

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?


Much of your post I completely understand and I don't read everythign JS writes becuase I find much of it to be twisted BS so I missed that article.

My question to you would be this; do you think it's possible that McCarthy was asking way too much out of his offensive line in the very beginning, putting them in a very tough position to succeed?
Yes he was, clearly. And he tipped his hand in Week 9 when he changed the game plan. But what he was asking was not superhuman. A good pass blocking line would have been able to do it.

So the question becomes, why didn't he change earlier? Everyone on this board claims this is because he is stubborn. Well, I don't know a coach in the NFL who isn't stubborn. That is no more illuminating than saying he is short with the media. They are all short with the media. Anyone remember Bill Parcells abandoning the run for most of the season?

So why eight weeks of frustration? Because the collapse happened in stages and for different reasons. Every week coaches watch film late on Sunday and Monday morning to prep the team for their Week in Review. Weeks 1 and 2 would have been Barbre's failure and the attempt to straighten him out. Week 3 was reasonable and the kind of result that could be taken as progress, a reason to stay the course. But in Week 4 Clifton goes down and that injury wreaks havoc on LT and LG for several weeks. But they know Clifton is coming back.

Subsequent weeks saw Spitz get injured, Barbre fail to progress beyond below average and Colledge fall into incompetence, probably exacerbated by his temporary move to tackle (though this is probably not the sole reason as he has been given to inconsistent pass pro before). Lang fills in admirably and Sitton seems to be holding up, but that isn't enough to keep the pass rush at bay. But Tauscher gets signed.

Now factor in the effect on the QB. He is getting hammered but still playing well and scoring at a reasonable clip. This is remarkable especially given that the running game is not breaking a lot of plays. But signs are developing that the sacks are causing him problems. He seems to be taking extra long for a significant number of throws, possibly watching his line to be sure of his protection. His footwork suffers and he starts to drift into trouble in the pocket, something he had seemed to learn not to do at the end of 2008 and pre-season 2009.

Despite all the trouble they are 4-3, no realistic shot at the division, but a Wild Card contender. But add all the problems up, take it on the road in the heat and you have Tampa Bay (Special Teams are obviously an issue as well). At that point, its clear that this team, even reinforced with Tauscher and a returning Clifton have no more time to devote to perfecting Plan A. So the game plan no longer is play to the strengths of the offense. It becomes much more about covering weakness. The unfortunate side effect is that I think we may score fewer points per possession. We will see. But really there wasn't much other choice.

There are two reasons for hope. The defense has come along at the right time. And some of the plays McCarthy had moved to (esp. the screen) will work well with any offensive plan he puts out on the field. Being forced to run screens now, they have been getting better week to week. We have seen better screens in the last two weeks than at any other time of M3's tenure. That is a good thing.

[Sparkey]

Let's put it this way:

A play caller not calling plays to slow down a pass rush is to an offensive line trying to do it's job as an offensive lineman just missing his block is to a running back trying to do his job.

It just makes the job harder.
Good offensive lines don't need the help against all but the best pass rushes. This group needed help against everybody.

As for your contention that its ridiculous that this O line "suddenly" got worse ignores the differences between 07, 08 and 09. Tauscher (pre-injury) and Clifton in 2008 had their worst pass blocking seasons since their rookie campaigns. Colledge has struggled with his pass blocking since he was a rookie and has rarely been consistent. Both he and Wells can be moved back. Sitton is improving, but he has had his misses just as Spitz did as a in his first two year. And Barbre was a catastrophe in pass blocking. He got slightly better (and I think he can improve to be a starter) but is not yet ready for NFL pass blocking. Even now Tauscher, while back and an improvement, is still not 100%.

No matter the point of comparison (09 with 08 or 07), this line pass blocks worse than its predecessors.

The problem with Tauscher being "so much better" is that he came back right when they changed philosophy to the shorter passes and runs. It could be either. I'm open to that. I tend to think it's more AR/MM and you tend to think it's more the OL. I say it was fixed because of changes in focus, you say it changed because Taush is back. Points can be made for both.


If I had to toss blame for the first 8 games, I'd go like this

33% OL Not being good enough
33% QB Not gettnig rid of the ball quick enough
33% Play caller not keeping the defenses off balance and expecting more than his OL is capable of delivering and taking way too long to recognize it wasn't working.


The last three games, I don't think the QB or playcaller have made the problem worse. The OL is still not good enough, but because their being put in position to succeed, we're winning with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a star LT. One star LT changes the whole complexion of this line with Lang showing promise of being the RT of the future and the decent interior guys we have. I don't think they're horrible. I think we can win with these guys right now. If we had great ST's and defense, I think this offense is even capable of winning it all but going forward, as a team, we have to find a way to get better and OL is definitely a group that can get better.

Everyone is ignoring the constant changes at center. The center was the main person making blitz calls and that position was constantly in flux. I think it was the Dallas game where MM let Rodgers start making blocking assignment calls as well as the center. I tend to think that has helped as well.

[sharpe1027]

PB,

They did run more screens and dumps the past two weeks. However, they also tried to run some screens early in the season, and they were almost always a complete failure. Further compounding the early season struggles were all the drops by the backs and TEs on what would have been easy dump off plays. Maybe they finally took some time in practice to run them? IDK.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Great post PB!

[pbmax]

PB,

They did run more screens and dumps the past two weeks. However, they also tried to run some screens early in the season, and they were almost always a complete failure. Further compounding the early season struggles were all the drops by the backs and TEs on what would have been easy dump off plays. Maybe they finally took some time in practice to run them? IDK.
Agreed. McCarthy clearly likes the play, but it did not appear as essential to him as other more typical West Coast plays. (Walsh screened very little early in his offense) But with the change starting with Dallas, he has been running it more and more effectively. I would be stunned if they weren't practicing it more and by running it multiple times in games, they have been getting better results. Of course, it was the Lions in the last game. Everything can look good against that defense.

[RashanGary]

Despite all the trouble they are 4-3, no realistic shot at the division, but a Wild Card contender. But add all the problems up, take it on the road in the heat and you have Tampa Bay (Special Teams are obviously an issue as well). At that point, its clear that this team, even reinforced with Tauscher and a returning Clifton have no more time to devote to perfecting Plan A. So the game plan no longer is play to the strengths of the offense. It becomes much more about covering weakness. The unfortunate side effect is that I think we may score fewer points per possession. We will see. But really there wasn't much other choice.

There are two reasons for hope. The defense has come along at the right time. And some of the plays McCarthy had moved to (esp. the screen) will work well with any offensive plan he puts out on the field. Being forced to run screens now, they have been getting better week to week. We have seen better screens in the last two weeks than at any other time of M3's tenure. That is a good thing.

I think you make a really solid arguement for what he was trying to do and I think it fits really well with what has gone on and what he's said along the way.

ST's improvement is a must. With the defense and the new found offense, who knows, maybe MM can have these guys competing. I'm disappointed it took so long to make these corrections. MM has to have this team in the playoffs regularly starting now or he won't have a job, but he did eventually make the change so he gets credit there. His leash is getting shorter. I don't think he gets half seasons to solve problems much longer though. Stubbornness being human or not, he's goign to have to find ways to win.

[RashanGary]

Everyone is ignoring the constant changes at center. The center was the main person making blitz calls and that position was constantly in flux. I think it was the Dallas game where MM let Rodgers start making blocking assignment calls as well as the center. I tend to think that has helped as well.

Interesting. I remember AR getting more responsibility but I didn't hear the specifics of what that responsibility was. Do you remember where you heard this?

[KYPack]

Walsh learned from Gillman when Gillman hired him with the Oakland Raiders.
Gillman never hired Walsh. Gillman never worked for the Raiders.

Sid Gillman
1955-1959..... NFL Los Angeles Rams
1960............. AFL Los Angeles Chargers
1961-1969..... AFL San Diego Chargers
1970-1971..... NFL San Diego Chargers
1973-1974..... NFL Houston Oilers

Bill Walsh
Oakland Raiders (1966) (Running back coach)
Cincinnati Bengals (1968–1975) (Assistant coach)
San Diego Chargers (1976) (Offensive coordinator)
Stanford Cardinal (1977–1978) (Head Coach)
San Francisco 49ers (1979–1988) (Head coach)

One thing I did not notice, Walsh was offensive coordinator for the Chargers in '76. SD head coach? Tommy Prothro.

Prothro learned the Single Wing offense from Red Sanders at Vanderbilt and UCLA.

Sid Gillman is the father of the WCO. When Gillman began his career as a HC at Miami U (O) & U cincy, he patterned his passing offense around the plays and patterns run by the Don Hutson Green Bay Packers offense. Gillman's father ran theaters. Sid got all the film available on Lambeau's passing offense and patterned his sophisticated passing offense around Hutson's "back to the future" passing system. Thus, Hutson and Lambeau are the Grandfathers of the WCO.

There is a funny "hole" in Walsh's coaching resume. In 1967, he was HC of the San Jose Apache's of the Continental league. He often dropped this from his coaching history as he wasn't exactly proud of that gig.

[get louder at lambeau]

Thought I'd plop this one in here. Aaron Rodgers, 12/3/09, on the OL and playcalling-


* On whether the offensive line has improved in recent weeks: "I think so. I think they’ve been doing a good job. I like the direction we’ve gone with the play-calling the last couple weeks, and I feel like it’s really allowed those guys to feel confident in the protection scheme. … When I’m getting it out quick, those guys feel good about the protection called, I think those guys are going to win a very high percentage of their one-on-one battles when they feel confident in the protection schemes."

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml

[Sparkey]

Everyone is ignoring the constant changes at center. The center was the main person making blitz calls and that position was constantly in flux. I think it was the Dallas game where MM let Rodgers start making blocking assignment calls as well as the center. I tend to think that has helped as well.

Interesting. I remember AR getting more responsibility but I didn't hear the specifics of what that responsibility was. Do you remember where you heard this?

Though Aaron Rodgers didn’t have one of his more productive games on Sunday, coach Mike McCarthy said he gave his quarterback more responsibility at the line of scrimmage than he ever has in an effort to help the Packers’ problems in pass protection

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091115/PKR01/91115063/Green-Bay-Packers-give-QB-Aaron-Rodgers-more-responsibility

“Aaron had a lot on his plate,” McCarthy said. “I told him earlier in the week, this was the most comprehensive game plan I think we’ve ever put on the quarterback. I’m not trying to dramatize. You (make) adjustments as much as we did, as far as protections, different calls, we did some new things this week, there wasn’t a lot of time to get things repped. There was a lot of adjustments carried over to Aaron’s responsibility. So from a management standpoint, I thought he did a very good job.”