Do we have a Rodgers problem?

[call_me_ishmael]

I realize it's week 2 against a very good defense, but this has been happening ever since the Seattle loss in the playoffs. The offense just isn't clicking. Do we have a Rodgers problem?

[MadtownPacker]

It is all Yoko's fucking fault.

[red]

It is all Yoko's fucking fault.

yup

didn't we have a thread about this last year too

and youre damn right we have an a-rod problem. PB just posted some ugly numbers in the banjo thread

[Joemailman]

When an established QB loses accuracy, it's often fundamentals. As in footwork. Maybe he just hasn't been the same since that calf injury.

There's also an issue with the offense though. Nothing seems in rhythm. It looks to me like Rodgers is almost never throwing to his first read.

[call_me_ishmael]

Another question: Where the heck are Abby and Montgomery? Did either even get a snap on offense? Why not spread 'em out and try some different things to spread 'em out against a banged up secondary??

[texaspackerbacker]

Hell No! Don't be a God damned imbecile.

We have an almost everything but Rodgers problem.

The only way the O Line was good is the lowered expectations we have come to have for them. Nelson looked slow; Adams was Adams - the picture of mediocrity; Cobb disappeared in the second half - (coverage shifted to him from Nelson?); We need to get Jeff Janis back - and have the coaches actually use him (Shit, what are the chances of that?)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Yes.

Other than the occasional big plays, the Great Arm of Butte has been playing worse than mediocre. Holds the ball too long. Inaccurate. Indecisive. Clutchness-absent.

Pick to Wayne was akin to Favre's last pass with the Pack, except on a lesser stage.

Even though I debunked Patler with MATH in the Wahle-Rivera-Thompson ordeal, he made a great point in another thread:


Rodgers threw well short of his receiver a couple times again...He extended his string of games with a QB rating less than 100 to 13 consecutive games, and 15 of his last 16 games. Prior to the current string, he had never gone more than 4 games without achieving a QBR greater than 100, and that happened only once, I think. For perspective, his career QBR is 104.1. He has been less than his career average for 13 consecutive games.

I think this is an indication that the Packers passing games is not fixed yet.

[superfan]

Rodgers looked pretty awful up until the point when he got drilled after running in the TD. Prior to that they showed a close up of him after sailing a pass over an open WR and I thought at the time he didn't even look like he wanted to be on the field. He just didn't seem to have his head or heart in the game.

That hit seemed to wake him up and he started firing lasers, but also turned it over twice. The fumble killed the momentum and the pick was under thrown.

Patler had a good post in another thread, I think Rodgers has been under his career QB Rating for something like 13 consecutive games.

Yeah we have a Rodgers problem, but we also have a problem with WRs not getting separation, communications issues, and protection issues. Fix those things and Rodgers should start looking like his old self again...

R-E-L-A-X

:wink:

[Harlan Huckleby]

There's also an issue with the offense though. Nothing seems in rhythm. It looks to me like Rodgers is almost never throwing to his first read.

I'm not disagreeing, but how is Bradford in perfect rhythm after two weeks with his team?

[call_me_ishmael]

Great to see you back Superfan! The first thought that came to mind after reading your post to conclusion:

"Yeah, but does anybody think ARod could go off for 6 TDs next week"

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Hell No! Don't be a God damned imbecile.

We have an almost everything but Rodgers problem.

The only way the O Line was good is the lowered expectations we have come to have for them. Nelson looked slow; Adams was Adams - the picture of mediocrity; Cobb disappeared in the second half - (coverage shifted to him from Nelson?); We need to get Jeff Janis back - and have the coaches actually use him (Shit, what are the chances of that?)

Love your homerism. :)

[pbmax]

I'm not disagreeing, but how is Bradford in perfect rhythm after two weeks with his team?

This is the part that keeps me awake. I don't think we run an organized, planned offense anymore. Its a hybrid Rodgers-McCarthy thing.

When was the last time you (the royal you not just Harlan) saw Rodgers go through progressions calmly and orderly? Its either look off safety to get to one on one matchup deep or wait for first read to uncover.

[RashanGary]

He played like shit, but also looked fast and strong and young. R-E-L-A-X

Let's see what the next few games hold before we jump off the cliff

[Freak Out]

I think you nailed it Max....what M3 and Arod have morphed into isn't working anymore. Is it time for a change?

[pbmax]

Jason Wilde ‏@jasonjwilde 17s18 seconds ago Green Bay, WI
Aaron Rodgers was 5-of-15 with an interception and two sacks against 5-or-more pass rushers on Sunday. It was... http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0569372303171784819-4 …

[pbmax]

I think you nailed it Max....what M3 and Arod have morphed into isn't working anymore. Is it time for a change?

I am headed that way.

Scott Kacsmar ‏@FO_ScottKacsmar 43m43 minutes ago
Maybe the best comparison I can offer for Rodgers is Brett Favre in 1999-2000. The high level of play did return after that.

The Good Tweet Guy @SportsTalkJoe
@FO_ScottKacsmar ironically 99-00 were favres 8-9 years as a starter just like 15-16 are years 8-9 as a starter for Rodgers

[HarveyWallbangers]

Let's give credit to Minnesota's defense. There are legit, and I've said that all offseason. They've spend a lot of high picks on that defense, and there is a lot of talent. Zimmer is a hell of a defensive coach too. Losing Rhodes hurt, but they have a lot of depth at DL, so the loss of Floyd isn't a big deal for that team.

[pbmax]

I do think they should get credit. The dome and the noise also explain the difficulty the tackles had. But we have seen this dance before in other venues.

[Pugger]

Hell No! Don't be a God damned imbecile.

We have an almost everything but Rodgers problem.

The only way the O Line was good is the lowered expectations we have come to have for them. Nelson looked slow; Adams was Adams - the picture of mediocrity; Cobb disappeared in the second half - (coverage shifted to him from Nelson?); We need to get Jeff Janis back - and have the coaches actually use him (Shit, what are the chances of that?)

I didn't think Jordy looked slow at all. It did appear he and AR are not on the same page. I saw Abby out there a couple of times but not Monty. Janis still has that club so we won't see him at WR for a while.

The O line issues were because they had to look away from the pass rusher to see when the ball was snapped and that gives the edge rushers a HUGE advantage and why Rodgers was strip-sacked 4 times. I hope Linsley is back soon. Until Tretter gets stronger he will be an issue in there against bigger D linemen.

[Pugger]

I do think they should get credit. The dome and the noise also explain the difficulty the tackles had. But we have seen this dance before in other venues.

I think we'll hear of other good QBs having issues in MN and that noise. After a slow start in FL last week he looked more like his old self in that game.

[smuggler]

I'm not disagreeing, but how is Bradford in perfect rhythm after two weeks with his team?

Because he has open receivers?

[George Cumby]

It is all Yoko's fucking fault.

This.

[pbmax]

Because he has open receivers?

That does help. Would really alleviate Rodgers struggle in pocket if people were open. There are three things holding the offense down. If one breaks free, the other two will solve themselves.

[Patler]

It depends what you mean by "problem". If you are relying on him to be the same QB that he was in 2012, 2013 and early 2014; then, yes there is a problem. He has not been that QB for a while now. I have been trying to explain that in an unemotional, reasoned way since during the 2015 season. At soon to be 33 years old, it is becoming more and more likely that AR and the Packers need to enter a new understanding of how to use his skills, which still are significant. It's not really even the skills that are the problem, it's the freedom (and deference) that he is given in how he carries out his responsibilities play to play.

The Packers very likely WILL have a decision to make two years from now, just as I have been saying for the last year. Should they keep their wagon hitched to the then soon to be 35 year old Aaron Rodgers, or embark on the next era with Brett Hundley (assuming the 2014 preseason was more than a mirage)? I had hoped that preseason 2016 would bring information for that decision, but due to Hundley's injury, it did not. Hopefully, 2017 will. Many QBs are basically hanging on after 35, and very few play at all, let alone play well in their late 30s. Finding AR's successor will not be easy, and if Hundley shows promise of being that, it might be unwise to let him walk out the door.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rodgers imagines himself to be in the same club as 39-year-old Tom Brady.

[red]

fat mike has created a monster when it comes to a rod by letting him do whatever he feels like

there may be no fixing it at this point, at least with this staff

[Patler]

Rodgers imagines himself to be in the same club as 39-year-old Tom Brady.

Instead, he might be in the same club as the soon to be 33 year old Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts and Jim Kelly were in, within not too many years of the ends of their careers. Some, but not all that may QBs still play well at 38, 39 and older. Warren Moon, Brett Favre and Tom Brady are not the norm, and to be perfectly objective, we do not yet know if the 39 year old Tom Brady will be the same as the 38 year old Tom Brady. I think it was Jim Kelly who said for him and many other QBs he talked to, the beginning of the end happened quickly, over an off season. Things were fine when he left, when he came back the following season things just didn't "click" the same, and never did thereafter.

[Rutnstrut]

fat mike has created a monster when it comes to a rod by letting him do whatever he feels like

there may be no fixing it at this point, at least with this staff

That's true, and many here were on Favre for being the same. Funny how the same people don't call out the exalted one.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think Denver's experience with Manning is instructive. Realizing Manning's decline in some areas of his game, Denver reworked their offense to accommodate Manning. If GB keeps chalking up Arod's decline to being out of sync, receivers not getting open, bad execution, there is no reason to change the offensive approach. You can't solve a problem if you don't tell it like it is.

[Patler]

I think Denver's experience with Manning is instructive. Realizing Manning's decline in some areas of his game, Denver reworked their offense to accommodate Manning. If GB keeps chalking up Arod's decline to being out of sync, receivers not getting open, bad execution, there is no reason to change the offensive approach. You can't solve a problem if you don't tell it like it is.

Elway had a good blueprint to follow, Denver did the same thing at the end of his career.

[gbgary]

rodgers problem? maybe a little. he's off a bit but guys aren't getting open either. EVERYONE is playing us tight press coverage. we used to eat defenses up cuz they'd play a lot of zone or give us space in man. defenses respected our guy's abilities. not so much now. our guys have to fight to get open cuz their being grabbed and pulled the whole time. on the opposite side of the ball our DBs are letting guys run free.

[Rutnstrut]

I think Denver's experience with Manning is instructive. Realizing Manning's decline in some areas of his game, Denver reworked their offense to accommodate Manning. If GB keeps chalking up Arod's decline to being out of sync, receivers not getting open, bad execution, there is no reason to change the offensive approach. You can't solve a problem if you don't tell it like it is.

Well that's simple, Denver has far better coaching and front office people.

[Rutnstrut]

rodgers problem? maybe a little. he's off a bit but guys aren't getting open either. EVERYONE is playing us tight press coverage. we used to eat defenses up cuz they'd play a lot of zone or give us space in man. defenses respected our guy's abilities. not so much now. our guys have to fight to get open cuz their being grabbed and pulled the whole time. on the opposite side of the ball our DBs are letting guys run free.

Good teams adjust to other teams adjustments. They have had plenty of time to do this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rodgers is still in his QB prime, this talk of easing him out is silly. Comparisons to bygone eras is even more inappropriate. Rodgers is a fitness nut, trained far beyond the old schoolers. QBs today are protected like teenage virgin daughters. 40 will soon be the new 32.

[gbgary]

Good teams adjust to other teams adjustments. They have had plenty of time to do this.

exactly. that's my point. coaches aren't making adjustments.

[hoosier]

rodgers problem? maybe a little. he's off a bit but guys aren't getting open either. EVERYONE is playing us tight press coverage. we used to eat defenses up cuz they'd play a lot of zone or give us space in man. defenses respected our guy's abilities. not so much now. our guys have to fight to get open cuz their being grabbed and pulled the whole time. on the opposite side of the ball our DBs are letting guys run free.

Are they getting open less than in 2009-14? I agree, on TV they certainly don't look very open, but don't assume it's all on the receivers. It used to be that Rodgers would "throw receivers open," fitting the ball into impossibly tight windows or throwing behind a well-covered receiver. His passes don't do that anymore. The receivers may be very average, but I am more and more convinced that the major problem with the GB offense is behind the center.

[Harlan Huckleby]

PS. Even Peyton Manning and Tom Brady played mostly in era when QBs could get hit. It's only going to get more gentle in coming decade.

[hoosier]

Rodgers is still in his QB prime, this talk of easing him out is silly. Comparisons to bygone eras is even more inappropriate. Rodgers is a fitness nut, trained far beyond the old schoolers. QBs today are protected like teenage virgin daughters. 40 will soon be the new 32.

Then why is his QB play so mediocre over the last 12 games?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then why is his QB play so mediocre over the last 12 games?

Hard to say. His arm is as strong as ever. He scrambles as well as ever. He has lost confidence and timing. Don't know how much of that is his fault.

[hoosier]

Hard to say. His arm is as strong as ever. He scrambles as well as ever. He has lost confidence and timing. Don't know how much of that is his fault.

He has lost accuracy too. I wonder if it's partly mechanics.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Instead, he might be in the same club as the soon to be 33 year old Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts and Jim Kelly were in, within not too many years of the ends of their careers. Some, but not all that may QBs still play well at 38, 39 and older. Warren Moon, Brett Favre and Tom Brady are not the norm, and to be perfectly objective, we do not yet know if the 39 year old Tom Brady will be the same as the 38 year old Tom Brady. I think it was Jim Kelly who said for him and many other QBs he talked to, the beginning of the end happened quickly, over an off season. Things were fine when he left, when he came back the following season things just didn't "click" the same, and never did thereafter.

It's a new era. With how guys train and with the rules protecting QBs it seems QBs are much more able to play into their late 30s then in the old days. Rodgers looks good physically. I think he acquired some bad habits last year, and he needs to work on correcting them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He has lost accuracy too. I wonder if it's partly mechanics.

Ya, I meant timing and accuracy to be same thing.

Bradford has looked fantastic at times and mediocre for stretches. QB play is in the head. Yoko Ono theory should be revisited.

[Patler]

Rodgers is still in his QB prime, this talk of easing him out is silly. Comparisons to bygone eras is even more inappropriate. Rodgers is a fitness nut, trained far beyond the old schoolers. QBs today are protected like teenage virgin daughters. 40 will soon be the new 32.

Funny that for most of the last 20 or so games, he has not played like a QB in his prime. QB performance is not always tied to physical condition or physical ability. To think that a player is or will continue to be in his prime just because he is a fitness nut is silly. We have been talking about and seeing "uncharacteristic" inaccuracy from Rodgers too long for it to be just a temporary thing. It has now spanned an off season. That should be telling him and the coaching staff that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. It is beyond the time that they should hope for it to fix itself.

No one is talking about easy him out now, and no one is saying definitively that it will be time to move on in two years. However, something needs to be fixed, or we can expect more of what we have seen for most of the last 20 games or so, hesitancy to throw on rhythm or timing into tight windows, only doing so on the move after extending plays, an increased occurrence of inaccuracy on all his throws, etc. We also can not be blind to the fact that AR is no longer a young QB. He very easily could be within his last 5 years. Perhaps the last 2 or 3 of those years shouldn't be in GB, IF AND ONLY IF Hundley proves to be a worthy successor during the next two preseasons. If there isn't a worthy successor, you ride Rodgers as long as you can, but maybe 2019 should be the start of the next QB era in GB.

[RashanGary]

It is all Yoko's fucking fault.

He played like shit, but he looked like a faggy male model after the game. Might have some problems with his priorities. Yoko might be crying for attention, saying he cares more about his job than her. And then he tries to be a hero and make her important and now he's a douche bag who can't play good football. But he's pretty and he does whatever yoko asks.

[Clayish]

Rodgers won the MVP while dating her. Invalid argument.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny that for most of the last 20 or so games, he has not played like a QB in his prime. QB performance is not always tied to physical condition or physical ability.

You discussed his slide while saying he could be done in a couple years. This insinuates that his struggles are age related.

You question here whether Rodgers is still in his prime, again suggesting he is in age-related decline.

I don't think Rodger's struggles are age related. If you agree with me, then your posts have been ambiguous. Or maybe it's me, not you, but we need start seeing other people.

[Patler]

You discussed his slide while saying he could be done in a couple years. This insinuates that his struggles are age related.

You question here whether Rodgers is still in his prime, again suggesting he is in age-related decline.

I don't think Rodger's struggles are age related. If you agree with me, then your posts have been ambiguous.

Baloney. I have always related it to his performance. I have simply pointed out that at 32-33 years old we shouldn't be surprised. AR can be entering a stage in which his performance will not be the same as it was at 25-30 years old and may never again return to that. I have said for the last year that it bears watching.

[beveaux1]

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern in the McCarthy-Rodgers offense. One of the posters said that McCarthy is allowing Rodgers too much freedom which would harken to the Sherman-Favre days. I would point out that after Rodgers showed anger in not being allowed a 4th down chance in Jacksonville, McCarthy "made up" for it against Minnesota. It also may well have cost us the game. This is troubling to me.

Defenses have found a way to severely limit our offense by mugging our receivers and we have no solution for it. A season's worth of games if you count the playoffs, and we still can't find a way to beat press man coverage with 2 deep safeties.

Even the teams with poor CBs lock up our receivers. Rodgers' strength has never been comebacks in close games. He's always been much better at racing to a big lead. I don't have any solutions, but I agree with Patler that Rodgers' accuracy is noticeably worse.

[Patler]

You discussed his slide while saying he could be done in a couple years. This insinuates that his struggles are age related.


Ah, no, it does not. "Being done" means being done, as in not PERFORMING to the level required. Some are done before they start. SOme are done in their early 30s. SOme are done in their mid 30s, and only a very few are not done until their late 30s. or early 40s. I have always recognized that it could be at any time.

You on the other hand seem to think that since he is only soon to be 33, he can't possible be on the downside of his career. The fact is that he CAN be. Not that he is or isn't, but can be. Again, it bears watching.

[Patler]

You question here whether Rodgers is still in his prime, again suggesting he is in age-related decline.


Perhaps you think an athlete being in his prime is age related, I have always thought it was a performance thing.
As you like to say, I think it is time for us to agree that you are wrong and I am right.

[Rutnstrut]

Could it be that Rodgers just isn't as good as everyone thought? Perhaps he's just really good, not great. His great seasons could have just been a "perfect storm" of things going his way.

[pbmax]

He has lost accuracy too. I wonder if it's partly mechanics.

He is waiting for the big one on one play to open up, if not the first window, then in the second, if not the second then on a scramble drill.

Problem is that his O line the last couple of years is not as leak proof as it has been previously. Rodgers has also been hurt (collarbone and calf). So he doesn't trust his protection and his movement in the pocket is more scattershot and less productive. He has done this before, dancing in the pocket too much without getting a lane to throw through.

The O line also has issues inside and out. Bach is not Clifton. You cannot ignore your back with him in pass pro. Yes he had a rough night on the road in a dome last night, but he gets beat enough that the QB has to be on the watch. Same to a lesser extent with Bulaga. Normally you want to step up, but with new people in front and the Vikes in a 5 man front, there is nowhere to go.

The reliance on the deep game hurts because its not working for all the reasons listed above.

They need to finish reinventing the offense, because the hybrid Rodgers/McCarthy model is too well known.

[pbmax]

Could it be that Rodgers just isn't as good as everyone thought? Perhaps he's just really good, not great. His great seasons could have just been a "perfect storm" of things going his way.

His accuracy has declined. That is new.

[pbmax]

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern in the McCarthy-Rodgers offense. One of the posters said that McCarthy is allowing Rodgers too much freedom which would harken to the Sherman-Favre days. I would point out that after Rodgers showed anger in not being allowed a 4th down chance in Jacksonville, McCarthy "made up" for it against Minnesota. It also may well have cost us the game. This is troubling to me.
.

I don't know about that. So Rodgers went to the sideline in Jacksonville and said coach I know we can RUN for the TD?

Giving the QB a run on 4th down isn't much of a reward.

McCarthy said he liked the long, time consuming 12 play drive and thought his offense had the better of the Viking D on that series. And he liked his play call.

[Fritz]

It depends what you mean by "problem". If you are relying on him to be the same QB that he was in 2012, 2013 and early 2014; then, yes there is a problem. He has not been that QB for a while now. I have been trying to explain that in an unemotional, reasoned way since during the 2015 season. At soon to be 33 years old, it is becoming more and more likely that AR and the Packers need to enter a new understanding of how to use his skills, which still are significant. It's not really even the skills that are the problem, it's the freedom (and deference) that he is given in how he carries out his responsibilities play to play.

The Packers very likely WILL have a decision to make two years from now, just as I have been saying for the last year. Should they keep their wagon hitched to the then soon to be 35 year old Aaron Rodgers, or embark on the next era with Brett Hundley (assuming the 2014 preseason was more than a mirage)? I had hoped that preseason 2016 would bring information for that decision, but due to Hundley's injury, it did not. Hopefully, 2017 will. Many QBs are basically hanging on after 35, and very few play at all, let alone play well in their late 30s. Finding AR's successor will not be easy, and if Hundley shows promise of being that, it might be unwise to let him walk out the door.


This is what I believe to be the case. Last year the narrative was "look how much the Packers miss Nelson." Nelson's back, and though he's not quite all the way back, it's clear Rodgers' performance is still shaky.

He is missing receivers, more and more and more. He missed Cook on a short, easy throw from inside his own ten yard line in the fourth. Later, he missed Cobb over the middle. Collinsworth said pressure came from Rodgers's left, and maybe so, but Rodgers got the throw off - and it was enough behind Cobb that the defender could knock it away. Rodgers missed Nelson long, he missed Adams long. On that interception at the end, Adams was open. But Rodgers, as is increasingly his wont to do, threw - or rather, lofted - the ball off his back foot. Oh, and then there's the double-hitch near-interception when the Packers were down on the Minnesota ten or so later in the game.

The announcers are still slathering over Rodgers's ability to extend plays, but I wonder if he's becoming hesitant.

I'd like to see MM send Rodgers back to QB school. Set your feet, move into the throw. All this jittering, back-foot throwing - it hasn't been working for a while. This leads me to wonder if in fact this is turning into something reminiscent of Sherman-Favre. Rodgers, to me, is becoming the problem.

Hell, TJ Lang discussed the first-down sack by Joseph, saying that the call was to slide the protection right. They all slid right, but Rodgers decided to drift left - right into Joseph.

Rodgers's QB rating has not been over 100 for a long time. I don't see the "we're just getting into a rhythm" thing as being too valid, as Sam Bradford seemed in fine rhythm after two weeks in an offensive system, and without a running game to boot.

The only possible excuse I can offer is that this is the divedend of not playing Rodgers in preseason. And maybe they will find a rhythm. But then again, this seems more like a continuation of last year than it does a team just needing to knock off the rust.

[Patler]

I don't know about that. So Rodgers went to the sideline in Jacksonville and said coach I know we can RUN for the TD?

Giving the QB a run on 4th down isn't much of a reward.

McCarthy said he liked the long, time consuming 12 play drive and thought his offense had the better of the Viking D on that series. And he liked his play call.

Agreed. Besides, I'm not convinced that Rodgers' anger was as much about the 4th down FG as it was about the botched 3rd down play with the line blocking "pass" and the backfield playing "run".

[Fritz]

I didn't mind the play call, but what I did mind was the personnel. Where was Lacy, the battering ram? Why Starks? Lacy was gone for long stretches during that game. It was strange.

I felt most confident when MM came out - was it the fourth quarter, or beginning of third? - with that two-tight end, Lacy deep behind Rodgers formation. I thought, finally, they're going to run the damn ball. And if TJ Lang hadn't been holding on Lacy's longer run, they might've kept to it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have always thought it was a performance thing.

Rodger's poor performance is a performance thing. It sounds like your position on age is that you take no position. I take a position: America and Rodger's best years are yet to come. Thank You and God Bless the Packers!

[Patler]

Could it be that Rodgers just isn't as good as everyone thought? Perhaps he's just really good, not great. His great seasons could have just been a "perfect storm" of things going his way.

It might be more of how long his greatness lasted. From 2009 to 2014 he was pretty great, and that would be an awful long long "perfect storm".

On the other hand, it very well might be that Rodgers, Nelson, Cobb and Lacy all had "career years" in 2014. If that is the case, it will not be matched again, yet that seems to be the standard many fans are expecting. While I think the offense is clearly under-performing, our expectations might be a bit too high as well.

[Patler]

I have always thought it was a performance thing.

Rodger's poor performance is a performance thing. It sounds like your position on age is that you take no position. I take a position: America and Rodger's best years are yet to come. Thank You and God Bless the Packers!

and once again, you edit a quote to support your skewed reasoning. What I wrote was "Perhaps you think an athlete being in his prime is age related, I have always thought it was a performance thing."


I take a position on age too. I like it. Age is a good thing. Getting old is a good thing. Being really old is a good thing. I speak from experience (which comes with age). However, I'm not sure how much I want to discuss my performance and age. It's kind of personal.

[hoosier]

Get a room, you two.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I notice that what goes second in old age (I'm not talking about the first) is the eyes. Arod needs to have his eyes checked. A good pair of bi-focal contacts and we're back in business. I prefer the blended lenses myself, but most of the time I can't find my glasses in the morning anyway, so that might not matter much.

[Patler]

I notice that what goes second in old age (I'm not talking about the first) is the eyes. Arod needs to have his eyes checked. A good pair of bi-focal contacts and we're back in business. I prefer the blended lenses myself, but most of the time I can't find my glasses in the morning anyway, so that might not matter much.

My eyes went first........:rs:

[Rastak]

and once again, you edit a quote to support your skewed reasoning. What I wrote was "Perhaps you think an athlete being in his prime is age related, I have always thought it was a performance thing."


I take a position on age too. I like it. Age is a good thing. Getting old is a good thing. Being really old is a good thing. I speak from experience (which comes with age). However, I'm not sure how much I want to discuss my performance and age. It's kind of personal.


Holy cows, my experience has been quite different. :-)

[Patler]

Holy cows, my experience has been quite different. :-)

I firmly embrace that saying that getting old is better than the only alternative.

There is a commercial on TV that I sort of like. The person says; "I intend to live forever, and so far I am right on course!"

[Rastak]

I firmly embrace that saying that getting old is better than the only alternative.

There is a commercial on TV that I sort of like. The person says; "I intend to live forever, and so far I am right on course!"

Ok, you got me there. :-P

[gbgary]

Could it be that Rodgers just isn't as good as everyone thought? Perhaps he's just really good, not great. His great seasons could have just been a "perfect storm" of things going his way.

there's too big a sample size for that opinion. just like pitchers he might be going through a thing. look at his old film and see if there's something different.

[Bossman641]

The next 4 home games will be very telling. All last year I was hesitant to call it a Rodgers problem due to everything else that was going on. While the WR's haven't been wide open, there have been windows. He missed both Nelson and Adams deep and both times the throws were too long and too far to the outside. Adams still doesn't look great, but he looks a lot more explosive then last year. Rodgers also missed Cobb high on third down coming across the middle, and there was the weird timing throw with Cook where Rodgers should have waited for Cook to clear the LB and instead threw it behind Cook.

The offense all too often comes down to a back shoulder throw or a scramble drill. I'm going to try to track the pre-snap formations next week. I don't remember any stack formations or motion from yesterday but I'm not 100% sure.

[MadScientist]

Could it be that Rodgers just isn't as good as everyone thought? Perhaps he's just really good, not great. His great seasons could have just been a "perfect storm" of things going his way.


there's too big a sample size for that opinion. just like pitchers he might be going through a thing. look at his old film and see if there's something different.

But now there is a growing sample size of evidence that Rodgers is not great any more. Since week 7 of last year he's been performing at Jay Cutter levels. Something happened, and I really think it was a brutal hit on a sack early in the Denver game. He's not had the same accuracy, and honestly, not the same zip on the ball as he did before.

Unless this changes soon, we may as well put Hundley in.

[beveaux1]

But now there is a growing sample size of evidence that Rodgers is not great any more. Since week 7 of last year he's been performing at Jay Cutter levels. Something happened, and I really think it was a brutal hit on a sack early in the Denver game. He's not had the same accuracy, and honestly, not the same zip on the ball as he did before.

Unless this changes soon, we may as well put Hundley in.

Like everyone, I see the change in accuracy. I'm not at all convinced that we can't win 10 or 11 games with this version of Rodgers. In fact, I would be surprised if we were not a playoff contender with Rodgers.

On the other hand, I think we would win at least 2 less games with any other QB on our roster. The team is talented enough to win 7 or 8 with a mediocre QB. It's better, in my opinion, than the team that won 2 games while Rodgers was out a couple of years ago, especially defensively.

I would not like to find out how well we would do with Hundley, because Rodgers is still conservatively better than 20 QBs in this league.

[yetisnowman]

I started a thread last season about Aaron's lackluster performance. Seems like about half the people thought I was being silly, and overreacting. Most everyone has come around now. Basically against a top 15 defense we have come to expect 200 yds, 1td 2 TOS, 55%completion rate. His mechanics are poor, his accuracy is poor, and he isn't making great decisions.
I blame the three headed monster of TT-MM-AR. This is their creation. Limited personnel, uninventive scheme and execution. It's actually really depressing, and I'm not sure there is a way to fix it before Aaron retires. The truth is this is not a good offense anymore. And it's too bad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

and once again, you edit a quote to support your skewed reasoning. What I wrote was "Perhaps you think an athlete being in his prime is age related, I have always thought it was a performance thing."


I have no idea if you think Rodgers problems are age-related. I guess you express no opinion on that matter. Who knows what a "performance thing" means?

[Pugger]

rodgers problem? maybe a little. he's off a bit but guys aren't getting open either. EVERYONE is playing us tight press coverage. we used to eat defenses up cuz they'd play a lot of zone or give us space in man. defenses respected our guy's abilities. not so much now. our guys have to fight to get open cuz their being grabbed and pulled the whole time. on the opposite side of the ball our DBs are letting guys run free.

This. If our DBs did to other teams' WRs what they do to ours you'll see laundry all over the field.

[Patler]

I have no idea if you think Rodgers problems are age-related. I guess you express no opinion on that matter. Who knows what a "performance thing" means?

Let's break that down:


I have no idea if you think Rodgers problems are age-related.

Then why did you make age-related conclusions (mostly incorrect) about my statements that did not reference age?



I guess you express no opinion on that matter.

Of course not, that's why I made specific statements about my opinion on age. :roll:



Who knows what a "performance thing" means?

I know what it means and I suspect most who read my comments know what it means in the context of what I wrote. For others, reading comprehension can be a challengs.

[dufferole]

But now there is a growing sample size of evidence that Rodgers is not great any more. Since week 7 of last year he's been performing at Jay Cutter levels. Something happened, and I really think it was a brutal hit on a sack early in the Denver game. He's not had the same accuracy, and honestly, not the same zip on the ball as he did before.

Unless this changes soon, we may as well put Hundley in.

Agreed. I think he has lost his nerve. He certainly has lost his touch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then why did you make age-related conclusions (mostly incorrect) about my statements that did not reference age?

You did reference age. You listed the ages of all sorts of old school QBs who hit a wall around age 32. The you said something about Rodger possibly not being able to go after a couple years, comparing him to the other wall hitters.

Then you deny having any opinion about age. Your posts are bewildering. I was happy to leave it at you not offering an opinion about age and Rodgers. But then you accused me of twisting your words, or some other bad faith thing. You are impossible.

[Rutnstrut]

Agreed. I think he has lost his nerve. He certainly has lost his touch.

I really have felt for a while that he has played more gun shy when he should be a bit more gunslinger. It leads some people to accuse him of being a stat whore.

[red]

i don't think theres a lot of accountability at 1265

a-rods fundamentals have gone to shit, and it sounds like he's pretty much calling what he wants on the field.

fat mike doesn't have the balls to say or do anything about it at this point, and TT and or mark murphy don't have the balls to say anything to rodgers or fat mike

we're also seeing just how worthless fat mike is as a head coach IMO. just like mike sherman at the end with favre, as others have already mentioned

one thing is for sure, we have not gotten things fixed like fatty has kept saying we will do. we should have moved on from mike already

we are no longer contenders with this pairing, and it doesn't look like the two of them can figure it out

its one of the reasons why most teams don't keep staff as long as we have

[red]

i keep thinking back to the 2010 preseason (the one right after the super bowl) they had big shot clocks and horns all over the field. the QB's had like 2.5 seconds to get the ball out, even if its a throw away

thats obviously an idea thats been scrapped . and i wonder why

and where the hell are the quick hitter slants?

[Patler]

You did reference age. You listed the ages of all sorts of old school QBs who hit a wall around age 32. The you said something about Rodger possibly not being able to go after a couple years, comparing him to the other wall hitters.

Then you deny having any opinion about age. Your posts are bewildering. I was happy to leave it at you not offering an opinion about age and Rodgers. But then you accused me of twisting your words, or some other bad faith thing. You are impossible.

I'm impossible? Untrue!! Not only am I possible, I actually am. I do exist in reality, not just your imagination.

I mentioned the younger ones who at 32-33 were entering their last few years to counter your reference to Brady at 39, thus showing that there is a significant range for career longevity. I'm surprised that apparently went right over your head. (I thought you were "taller" than that). AR could be in either group, or somewhere in between. HOWEVER, his suspect play over that last season's worth of games should lead one to consider the possibilities that he will be done at 36, 37 rather than 39, 40 or later. Even 37 is not that far away for AR. Pro sports careers can be very fleeting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At soon to be 33 years old, it is becoming more and more likely that AR and the Packers need to enter a new understanding of how to use his skills, which still are significant. ... The Packers very likely WILL have a decision to make two years from now, just as I have been saying for the last year. Should they keep their wagon hitched to the then soon to be 35 year old Aaron Rodgers, or embark on the next era with Brett Hundley

Age is your central argument. Then you deny this, and refuse to plainly state your opinion if you have one. Then you get peevish when I accept that you have no opinion.

And it's my fault for not following your brilliant analysis.

[pbmax]

and where the hell are the quick hitter slants?

Nearly getting intercepted. They have thrown more slants in these two games than at any time the last two years.

Also no more gunslinger: gunslingering yesterday produced a pick along with some nice plays.

What we need is more solid protection and for ARod to stay settled in the pocket. Then deliver the ball on time. Stop Tebowing it and waiting for single covered guy to uncover.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm impossible? Untrue!! Not only am I possible, I actually am. I do exist in reality, not just your imagination.

I mentioned the younger ones who at 32-33 were entering their last few years to counter your reference to Brady at 39, thus showing that there is a significant range for career longevity. I'm surprised that apparently went right over your head. (I thought you were "taller" than that). AR could be in either group, or somewhere in between. HOWEVER, his suspect play over that last season's worth of games should lead one to consider the possibilities that he will be done at 36, 37 rather than 39, 40 or later. Even 37 is not that far away for AR. Pro sports careers can be very fleeting.


All the age talk. Age is just a number, man.

I'm sorry we had this little spat. I have no idea what we disagree on.

[pbmax]

Could Patler and Harlan produce an executive summary about what they are arguing about?

Because I think they agree.

[Patler]

Age is your central argument. Then you deny this, and refuse to plainly state your opinion if you have one. Then you get peevish when I accept that you have no opinion.

And it's my fault for not following your brilliant analysis.

Peevish? Man you certainly take things seriously, don't you?

I said said his skills remain significant. What more do you want?
But at 35 his shelf life will be short even if he plays to 40. As I have said many times, and did with Favre, they will be faced with deciding if they want a few more years with the status quo, or move on if the next option is in house already.

[Patler]

Could Patler and Harlan produce an executive summary about what they are arguing about?

Because I think they agree.

I think you are right.

[Patler]

Nearly getting intercepted. They have thrown more slants in these two games than at any time the last two years.

Also no more gunslinger: gunslingering yesterday produced a pick along with some nice plays.

What we need is more solid protection and for ARod to stay settled in the pocket. Then deliver the ball on time. Stop Tebowing it and waiting for single covered guy to uncover.

MM did an interview way back those many years ago when AR was a mere pup in the starting lineup. He was asked what things had to change in going from Favre to Rodgers. The one thing I remember was him saying that Favre's best throw was probably the slant, and he was confident throwing it, but that wasn't true for AR. He preferred and was better at throws along the sidelines, which were not Favre's strong suit. He said game plans had to reflect what QBs were most comfortable throwing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have daddy issues.

[Maxie the Taxi]

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/5/21/16/anigif_enhanced-buzz-13771-1369166523-5_preview.gif

[Joemailman]

MM did an interview way back those many years ago when AR was a mere pup in the starting lineup. He was asked what things had to change in going from Favre to Rodgers. The one thing I remember was him saying that Favre's best throw was probably the slant, and he was confident throwing it, but that wasn't true for AR. He preferred and was better at throws along the sidelines, which were not Favre's strong suit. He said game plans had to reflect what QBs were most comfortable throwing.

Have to wonder at this point what Rodgers is comfortable throwing.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Have to wonder at this point what Rodgers is comfortable throwing.Tantrums?

[yetisnowman]

Nearly getting intercepted. They have thrown more slants in these two games than at any time the last two years.

Also no more gunslinger: gunslingering yesterday produced a pick along with some nice plays.

What we need is more solid protection and for ARod to stay settled in the pocket. Then deliver the ball on time. Stop Tebowing it and waiting for single covered guy to uncover.

The pick was just a bad throw, not a result of some gunslinger mentality.
What's weird is even when he has good protection, you see the jittery happy feet get going. It's almost like the improvisational is his comfort zone, and designed plays aren't anymore. Now of course a lot of that is the designed plays not working most of the time. But he looks like he needs a sports shrink or something, he has truly psyched himself out of his own game.

[beveaux1]

Looks like this isn't our secret anymore. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/aaron-rodgers-stats-mediocre-green-bay-packers

[vince]

Looks like this isn't our secret anymore. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/aaron-rodgers-stats-mediocre-green-bay-packers
Good piece thanks for that beveaux. Here's the big problem, though I don't see that Cobb has lost anything. He looks better than last year even though he'll never be a man-beater by himself.

The Packers’ passing woes start with a receiving corps that simply can’t get open against man coverage. Getting Jordy Nelson back from an ACL tear was supposed to solve that issue, but Nelson hasn’t looked like the player he was before the injury. It’s not a given that the 31-year-old ever will after major knee surgery. What was once a top-five receiving corps has become a bit of a liability against teams that can match-up man-to-man.

Davante Adams is a plodding route-runner who can’t stretch the field and has had problems with drops. Randall Cobb has slowed down a step or two and is dealing with more bodies over the middle now that teams don’t have to play a safety over the top of Nelson. Until Nelson returns to form, this group will underachieve.

Quick hitters down the seams to Cook, Rodgers and Cobb would be a good start. They've done some of that but not enough. Then up the tempo and get defenses on their heals a bit rather than lining up and hard counting until the play clock expires. I'd say slants but unfortunately Adams can't seem to figure out that he can't let the defender cross his body on slants... When (if) Jordy gets some mobility back the sideline back shoulder should be money. Maybe Davis can make defenders want to back off some when he gets integrated more. Monty could be a beast for corners to tackle if he can get the ball in his hands isolated.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Monty could be a beast for corners to tackle if he can get on the field.FIFY

[vince]

Good point.

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't think Jordy looked slow at all. It did appear he and AR are not on the same page. I saw Abby out there a couple of times but not Monty. Janis still has that club so we won't see him at WR for a while.

The O line issues were because they had to look away from the pass rusher to see when the ball was snapped and that gives the edge rushers a HUGE advantage and why Rodgers was strip-sacked 4 times. I hope Linsley is back soon. Until Tretter gets stronger he will be an issue in there against bigger D linemen.

They were smart enough to go for the strip sacks, and Rodgers didn't pick up on that and secure the ball. Yeah, obviously he and Nelson weren't on the same page. However, I really thought Nelson looked slow too. I didn't see him get any separation all game, and those weren't exactly superstar Corners. Tretter not being strong enough is an over-simplification of the O Line problem. The whole group had very very few successes on run blocking, and they let the pass rush through like water just about all the time. There's hardly a game that does not happen. Rodgers' mobility is what masks the problem and wins games anyway. The Vikings found a way to deal with that mobility.

Not using Abbrederis or Montgomery is just another way for McCarthy to put a leash on Rodgers - why the hell he would want to do that I really don't know, as weak O line and all, Rodgers can make plays. He proved that again in desperation time. Why they would be so stupid as to not let him do that for 3 1/2 quarters is really mystifying.

[vince]

Disagree about the line. Defenses are pressing the line of scrimmage and with Rodgers holding the ball that puts a lot of pressure on the line. They got beat a few times for sure but they consistently see guys threatening (and hitting) gaps everywhere both rushing and filling running lanes. I think they've held up OK (not great) given who they've faced thus far. I'm a broker record here, but quick hitters and faster tempo would help the line out tremendously too.

[Rutnstrut]

IMO the biggest problem is stubby continues to not make gameplans to his players strengths. He continually tries to put square pegs in round holes.

[George Cumby]

Have to wonder at this point what Rodgers is comfortable throwing.

His teammates under the bus?

[Joemailman]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/09/20/mcginn-rating-packers-vs-vikings/90701150/

McGinn talks about how Rodgers' mechanics have deteriorated. I've felt for a while that is the reason for his inaccuracy. Does MM see it as a problem? Is Rodgers still coachable? Is that calf injury a permanent problem?

[Pugger]

Have to wonder at this point what Rodgers is comfortable throwing.

Over his receivers' heads or at their feet?

[Pugger]

His teammates under the bus?

When did he do this?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Davante Adams is a plodding route-runner who can’t stretch the field and has had problems with drops.

ouch

[Harlan Huckleby]

When did he do this?

See Janis, Jeff.

But you are right, Rodgers is not prone to bad-mouthing teammates. George Cumby couldn't resist a good pun.

[George Cumby]

See Janis, Jeff.

But you are right, Rodgers is not prone to bad-mouthing teammates. George Cumby couldn't resist a good pun.

you know me too well, Harlan. And this frightens me.

[hoosier]

Disagree about the line. Defenses are pressing the line of scrimmage and with Rodgers holding the ball that puts a lot of pressure on the line. They got beat a few times for sure but they consistently see guys threatening (and hitting) gaps everywhere both rushing and filling running lanes. I think they've held up OK (not great) given who they've faced thus far. I'm a broker record here, but quick hitters and faster tempo would help the line out tremendously too.

Quick hitters are tough against press man when defense doesn't have to worry about (accurate) deep balls.

[pbmax]

Quick hitters are tough against press man when defense doesn't have to worry about (accurate) deep balls.

That is something that Doug Farrar piece talks about. How to use formations and motion to free your people up from press man. Basically, everything you used to see Greg Jennings do when he moved inside for 3 WR - motion, 2 stacked receivers, bunches of three.

I have seen some more of two receiver stacks this year, so I am hopeful. No motion.

https://t.co/ZoOM3FLDq2

[gbgary]

i know the "big play" is a priority for MM but it's gotten to the point where AR is looking to go deep all the time instead of taking a higher percentage throw. i think if they'd concentrate on the shorter stuff the big play will happen more.

[Carolina_Packer]

Disagree about the line. Defenses are pressing the line of scrimmage and with Rodgers holding the ball that puts a lot of pressure on the line. They got beat a few times for sure but they consistently see guys threatening (and hitting) gaps everywhere both rushing and filling running lanes. I think they've held up OK (not great) given who they've faced thus far. I'm a broker record here, but quick hitters and faster tempo would help the line out tremendously too.

Good post, Vince. I agree with Aaron holding the ball too long. Has anyone here re-watched the game or have the wide-view of the replay? I'd be curious to know if it's Aaron not trusting to get the ball out, the receivers routes taking too long to develop, his decision making with pressure, or some/all of the above. I wish they could establish respect for the run game, so they could another defender committed to the box, but with the man to man clamp down and the lack of the Packers running against that effectively, it puts a lot of pressure on the success of the passing game. Is it too hard to be a good running and passing team? It's frustrating. Back in 2011, we would have killed to have an Eddie Lacy running the ball. The Packers were other worldly in passing, despite a pretty mediocre running attack. I think they had receivers who were not only on the same wavelength as Rodgers, but also had superior elusiveness vs. DB's.

[Pugger]

Good post, Vince. I agree with Aaron holding the ball too long. Has anyone here re-watched the game or have the wide-view of the replay? I'd be curious to know if it's Aaron not trusting to get the ball out, the receivers routes taking too long to develop, his decision making with pressure, or some/all of the above. I wish they could establish respect for the run game, so they could another defender committed to the box, but with the man to man clamp down and the lack of the Packers running against that effectively, it puts a lot of pressure on the success of the passing game. Is it too hard to be a good running and passing team? It's frustrating. Back in 2011, we would have killed to have an Eddie Lacy running the ball. The Packers were other worldly in passing, despite a pretty mediocre running attack. I think they had receivers who were not only on the same wavelength as Rodgers, but also had superior elusiveness vs. DB's.

I haven't rewatched the game (I don't know if I could stomach it) but I'd wager it is all of the above in your post.

[pbmax]

The running game was not spectacular versus the Vikings, but it was better than the Vikings'.

You can live with 3 ypc if your passing game is clicking, but you are not going to get a team out of coverage at that rate. It keeps the dogs at bay and makes people pay attention to play action.

[hoosier]

That is something that Doug Farrar piece talks about. How to use formations and motion to free your people up from press man. Basically, everything you used to see Greg Jennings do when he moved inside for 3 WR - motion, 2 stacked receivers, bunches of three.

I have seen some more of two receiver stacks this year, so I am hopeful. No motion.

https://t.co/ZoOM3FLDq2

I wonder why McCarthy got away from that. I know it's complicated, but I cannot believe that he's unaware of the problem or that he doesn't have access to the kind of solution Farrar is proposing. Self scouting used to be such a point of emphasis with McCarthy. Maybe it still is, but it is really surprising to see this offense stuck in the mud for such a long time. If a good part of the problem lies with Rodgers (mechanical, lack of confidence in receivers, whatever) it's still a bit of a shock to see that McCarthy is apparently unable to fix it.

[MadScientist]

More from the writers on how Rodgers is not Rodgers anymore:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/baranczyk%20/2016/09/20/baranczyk-erratic-rodgers-far-mvp-form/90720516/

He's doing a better job making commercials than making plays.

[pbmax]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/09/20/mcginn-rating-packers-vs-vikings/90701150/

McGinn talks about how Rodgers' mechanics have deteriorated. I've felt for a while that is the reason for his inaccuracy. Does MM see it as a problem? Is Rodgers still coachable? Is that calf injury a permanent problem?

I think most of Rodgers issues with mechanics have to do with movement in the pocket. He is dancing around worried about pressure (often for good reason) when he decides to throw.

[Rutnstrut]

I think most of Rodgers issues with mechanics have to do with movement in the pocket. He is dancing around worried about pressure (often for good reason) when he decides to throw.

If he's scared of getting hit, he should quit.

[pbmax]

If he's scared of getting hit, he should quit.

Why? Brett played that way for the last 5/6 years of his career (the Vikings year being a notable exception) and he was fine.

[Rutnstrut]

Why? Brett played that way for the last 5/6 years of his career (the Vikings year being a notable exception) and he was fine.

I never remember Favre being as yippy as Rodgers has been for the last 14 games or so.

[denverYooper]

I never remember Favre being as yippy as Rodgers has been for the last 14 games or so.

I do.

Favre's willingness to get rid of the ball "trying to make a play" is not much different. He didn't want to get hit either.

[vince]

That is something that Doug Farrar piece talks about. How to use formations and motion to free your people up from press man. Basically, everything you used to see Greg Jennings do when he moved inside for 3 WR - motion, 2 stacked receivers, bunches of three.

I have seen some more of two receiver stacks this year, so I am hopeful. No motion.

https://t.co/ZoOM3FLDq2
Here's a good new article published today that echoes some of what Farrar mentions and adds a couple things that also ring true for me.
Struggling Packer Offense Flawed by Design (https://www.all22.com/team/green-bay-packers-struggling-offense-flawed-by-design)

Fundamentally, they run a “second-phase isolation system.” This offense is intended to take advantage of Rodgers’ unique ability to keep plays alive and create big-play opportunities well after most systems demand the ball be released.


The Packers run an off-script, non-rhythmic offense. They utilize isolation routes and spread formations. They anticipate their players winning 1-on-1 matchups or Rodgers putting the ball where defenders can’t reach it. His trademark back-shoulder connection to Jordy Nelson is just one example.

The issues come when receivers cannot separate from man coverage. Then, each receiver is running an independent route and no one is getting open.


McCarthy is among the best sequencers in the business. He knows when to call the right plays at the right time, and is always multiple steps ahead of the defense. He will call specific plays from certain formations in order to set up opportunities later in the game.

Yet, watch the last 14 Packers games and you see none of that.

In fact, you see little McCarthy at all. Drawing up an offensive structure that asks its quarterback to play without structure and create magic on every play is not good enough, and it’s not what McCarthy has done throughout his career.


Time to pick up the pace

Rodgers can create magic unlike anyone else in the league. Yet even Michael Jordan knew when it was time to make a layup.

Rodgers must be better at getting the ball out quickly and making simple plays. Doing so would allow the Packers to increase the pace of their offense. It’s most effective when it jumps into no-huddle mode, keeping defenses on their heels and unable to substitute. In 2015, the Packers finished 21st in seconds-per-play. That number that just isn’t good enough for a team that should be routinely using tempo to keep the defense off-balance.

This segues into McCarthy's PC from yesterday. I think Big Mike may be about to take some control back from Rodgers.

Here's what he had to say.

The efficiency, the flow and our execution needs to improve. Playing with a quicker tempo. Not reacting to the disguise of the defense. That’s what today’s meeting was for, to make sure the film gets corrected.

We have a clear understanding of what we need to do and a clear vision of what we’re going to do.

The “time clock” [Rodgers holding the ball too long] is something that we need to improve on in our passing game. That will be a focus of ours this week.

Looking at how we want to play is a focus. We need to do a better job moving forward.

We went to some more basic things in the second half, but the turnovers in the second half were really the downfall there.

So you get a chance to look at the film, dissect it, communicate about it and lay it all out. I feel like we’ve had a good day doing that.

Edgar Bennett added,

We had a great session today making corrections and putting ourselves in position to apply those corrections moving forward.

In the no-huddle, we have to clean up a few things and make sure we’re operating at a high level as far as our tempo.

We feel like we have a plan in place so that we can be more efficient.
That all sounds reassuring to me, at least in terms of them seeing the issues and addressing them with Rodgers in particular. I'm looking forward to seeing if/how it translates to the field.

[Bossman641]

Good article

It really is puzzling. I don't know if it's overconfidence on the part of MM or Rodgers. We run the same 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB package for basically 70% of the offense with the same personnel nearly every time. What good is it to not substitute and force the D to keep their same guys on the field if that package isn't producing.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Good article

It really is puzzling. I don't know if it's overconfidence on the part of MM or Rodgers. We run the same 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB package for basically 70% of the offense with the same personnel nearly every time. What good is it to not substitute and force the D to keep their same guys on the field if that package isn't producing.Maybe Stubby has bought into the Lombardi philosophy of keeping it basic but executing to perfection. From his point of view the problem is not inability to fool the opposition but lack of execution.

[Zool]

I don't want to dig through this whole thread, but here's a good article on the O struggles

https://theringer.com/something-is-wrong-with-aaron-rodgers-af70c87703a7#.p7zmuvmvw

[Fritz]

They were smart enough to go for the strip sacks, and Rodgers didn't pick up on that and secure the ball. Yeah, obviously he and Nelson weren't on the same page. However, I really thought Nelson looked slow too. I didn't see him get any separation all game, and those weren't exactly superstar Corners. Tretter not being strong enough is an over-simplification of the O Line problem. The whole group had very very few successes on run blocking, and they let the pass rush through like water just about all the time. There's hardly a game that does not happen. Rodgers' mobility is what masks the problem and wins games anyway. The Vikings found a way to deal with that mobility.

Not using Abbrederis or Montgomery is just another way for McCarthy to put a leash on Rodgers - why the hell he would want to do that I really don't know, as weak O line and all, Rodgers can make plays. He proved that again in desperation time. Why they would be so stupid as to not let him do that for 3 1/2 quarters is really mystifying.


Tex,

You've been going really hard at this idea that the O line is primarily to blame for the Packer Offense's troubles. So I have been thinking about that...and I went back to 2014, when Rodgers won his last MVP and the team almost made it to the SB.

Who were the offensive linemen?

Bahktieri, Sitton, Lang, Bulaga, and - was it Linsley's rookie year? And Bulaga was hurt for awhile, so I'm trying to remember for how long and if it was Barclay was subbing before he got hurt. Or was it Tretter?

The point is, of course, that this is the same group of linemen blocking for Rodgers, sans Sitton, as blocked for him when he was the MVP.

Unless you are positing that they've gotten considerably worse since 2014, I'm not sure how you can make your argument. And if you are arguing they've gotten worse, that'd be tough to defend since none of them are now yet 30, and Sitton just turned 30 before he was let go.

I just don't see how you can make this argument.

[gbgary]

when Rodgers holds the ball 2.5 seconds and longer the o-line will finally break down. any line will break down. the cowboys supposedly have the best o-line and their qbs are running for their lives too. as for the line in the running game i think it's fine...depending on the type of run play called. nowadays defenses are so fast in pursuit that edge runs are seldom successful. straight ahead works better.

btw...our o would be a lot less predictable if Rodgers worked from under center more. imo

[Carolina_Packer]

when Rodgers holds the ball 2.5 seconds and longer the o-line will finally break down. any line will break down. the cowboys supposedly have the best o-line and their qbs are running for their lives too. as for the line in the running game i think it's fine...depending on the type of run play called. nowadays defenses are so fast in pursuit that edge runs are seldom successful. straight ahead works better.

btw...our o would be a lot less predictable if Rodgers worked from under center more. imo

QFT...I really liked that article that Zool posted. It does indicate, at least implicitly, that there is a stubbornness to the offensive approach that MM and AR are taking. The article obviously points more to AR's decision making, indicating that there were man beater concepts used, even if AR did not always "take what was being given". There is a quote about being a victim of your own success. Perhaps that's some of what we are seeing now. The "This has always worked!" approach can keep one from necessarily adapting to present circumstances.

[Maxie the Taxi]

MM has earned his nickname "Stubby."

[Pugger]

IMO one thing Aaron and the offense could do that would cure a lot of what ails us is to take what the defense gives you instead of looking for the big play. I hate it when we throw down field on 3rd and short when Aaron could scamper for the first down or throw it underneath.

[Fritz]

MM has earned his nickname "Stubby."



Wait, I thought that was about his penis size.

[swede]

Wait, I thought that was about his penis size.

It's pronounced "penis" Fritz. Didn't you ask questions in health class?

[Fritz]

When I was in school, we didn't have "health class." We had shop.

[hoosier]

In middle school I had a shop teacher who lost part of his hand in an electrical mishap. His nickname could have been Stubby.

[Fritz]

Back when I was a kid, we didn't have no big-headed ego-maniac quarterbacks.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNOmmKXfM2QFeEDQTEiAMFplw-Z7n4_MgkuU0_4hvj7e6AeCuIIA


We had us a real quarterback. You ditnt have to worry about him gettin' all touchy and whatnot. He jes played the game.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKqMYlBKFkWNHVyTtgoU_g2UAsuEuUl jg_7x5CTO0gZ5DUlcdEOA

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex,

You've been going really hard at this idea that the O line is primarily to blame for the Packer Offense's troubles. So I have been thinking about that...and I went back to 2014, when Rodgers won his last MVP and the team almost made it to the SB.

Who were the offensive linemen?

Bahktieri, Sitton, Lang, Bulaga, and - was it Linsley's rookie year? And Bulaga was hurt for awhile, so I'm trying to remember for how long and if it was Barclay was subbing before he got hurt. Or was it Tretter?

The point is, of course, that this is the same group of linemen blocking for Rodgers, sans Sitton, as blocked for him when he was the MVP.

Unless you are positing that they've gotten considerably worse since 2014, I'm not sure how you can make your argument. And if you are arguing they've gotten worse, that'd be tough to defend since none of them are now yet 30, and Sitton just turned 30 before he was let go.

I just don't see how you can make this argument.

I guess this is the post you were talking about. As I replied in the other thread, the problem is the drift toward a run first attack. Even in 2014, our O Line couldn't just line up and push back opponents. Then, though, they had the benefit of more of a pass first attack so the O Line inadequacy was masked a lot more than now.

[Fritz]

So as I replied in the other post, your previous criticisms seemed leveled at the offensive line period, but now you seem to be shifting to a criticism of McCarthy's playcalling, though I suppose you perhaps are arguing he used to call plays to mask the deficiency of the line, but doesn't any longer.

I'm not buying that line, myself. But I think you're on the right track insofar as understanding that this is a complex issue - the parts are all moving and interactive, so it's kinda hard to actually pin it on one person or even one group.

However, this does not stop me from simply blaming Rodgers. It's so much easier because the solution is so much easier. Play better, Rodgers! Quit missing those open receivers!

Ah, but in truth, of course, it's a number of factors.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm with you on one thing: Rodgers needs to play better than he did last game - ball security and probably accuracy too, although most of his off-target passes had something to do with the receivers not being open. I think the pressure of wasting downs on unsuccessful runs and needing to pass in obvious passing situations took its toll some.

It has a lot to do with super high expectations for him, and extremely low expectations for the O Line.

And I HAVE been criticizing McCarthy - increasingly as he has gotten more committed to "run-first".

[Harlan Huckleby]

Back when I was a kid, we didn't have no big-headed ego-maniac quarterbacks.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNOmmKXfM2QFeEDQTEiAMFplw-Z7n4_MgkuU0_4hvj7e6AeCuIIA



Walter Brennan would have been a hell of an offensive coordinator.