Printable View
1. These comments from Josh Sitton seem to suggest there is:
Starts around the 5:45 mark
http://media.1057fmthefan.com/a/1123...e-big-show.htm
2. On Inside the NFL, Esaison said that if the Packers get beat badly on Sunday, McCarthy will be gone. (Sorry, don't have a link, it was on TV)
3. Chmura on his radio show said that McCarthy and Rodgers aren't on speaking terms right now.
Offense running at less than usual capacity (by a striking amount) and opinions differ about how to fix it?
Color me shocked.
For weeks now my brother has been insisting this is the case. If #3 is correct, it would be news and might stem from Stubby's inept handling of the Clements play-calling experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonWolfGOAT
A disappointing way to piss away a season.
2. Not a chance. What is Esiason's source?
3. They have to talk during game planning meetings. What is Chumura's Source?
Boomer's source is a guy he met in a bar who knew another guy who heard it from a former neighbor of Jim Taylor.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Chumura's source is a teenage girl he met in a hot tub.
Maybe it has something to do with McCarthy's almost manic push toward a run first approach - a wrongheaded idea IMO. Replacing Clement could be construed as a slap at Rodgers - who Clement supposedly gave more leeway to. I wouldn't be opposed to a lot of run plays if we had a decent O Line, but as it is, runs into the line are mostly wasted plays that basically put more pressure on the QB to pass on 2nd or 3rd and long. pass pass pass pass - 5 to 10 times, then run rarely as a change of pace - that's the way to go. You can have variety just by different types of pass plays. We have had crappy O Line play for years now, and for the most part, Rodgers can escape and pass with success anyway.
Except when he can't and is sacked 5-10 times per game. I suppose Rodgers could be pissed at Stubby for the run-heavy offense, because Rodgers enjoys getting the shit kicked out of him with backup tackles, but somehow I suspect not. Especially since Rodgers is even more reticent to run himself lately. Maybe he is protecting his photographic memory for the long term. Couldn't say I blame him, but that runs totally counter to hating Stubby for calling more runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Time to call for refrigerator delivery and some inside info. Put a small red flag in a potted plant on your stoop.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
There are only so many appliances you can buy in a year - and only so many appliance delivery guys who know players on the team. It really is an exclusive community, but they do like to talk when given the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Yeah, but passing on early downs makes the sacks less likely. Also, the Arizona game was a bit of an aberration. Most of the time, Rodgers avoids the sacks against other teams. Last week when we FINALLY went pass first late in the game - even when it was expected because of the score, things went a LOT better. It's a damn shame it took necessity and about 3 quarters for McCarthy to come to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Relating to this possible conflict between McCarthy and Rodgers, I suspect that somebody, maybe McCarthy, is stupidly telling Rodgers (just like some people in forums) to not be so cautious and throw it into traffic sometimes. If I was Rodgers, that would piss me off.
Rodgers has been sacked 46 times this year, the third highest in the league. He has been under duress on 33% of dropbacks, the 5th highest in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
The passing offense has looked good late in the game a few times.....Sunday vs Minn, at Carolina. The common denominator is that we were down 2+ scores in those cases.
The offense's best chance to succeed is to go run heavy. If Rodgers is pissed they aren't passing more then he's an idiot.
I think it goes back to last year's NFCCG. Rodgers was clearly upset that MM took the ball out of his hands on the last possession. I think it's carried over to this year. I don't know how much it's contributed to this year's poor offensive performance, but you'd like for the coach and QB to be on the same page.
I think this is one part of the disconnect. Offensive lineman always think the answer is running the ball.
Sitton calls for 30 combined rushing attempts for Lacy, Starks
But it begs the question of playing from behind. You don't get to 30 carries unless you have a lead late, which they have not had. And for most of the year, they have really struggled to run the ball. Starks has been better than Lacy in all but maybe 2 games. The line hasn't been dominant in run blocking since Barclay and Bach were rookies.Quote:
"Obviously, some games dictate otherwise," Sitton said. "I think to be successful we've got to be able to do that."
So again we have public comments from a team with a struggling offense that differs in what direction they should point to shake off the disappointment. But none of their options are game changers. They need to play error free on offense, both from turnovers and penalties to keep drives alive.
They might get to 30 carries more often if the OL could knock a DL off the ball on 3rd and short once in a while.
I heard Rodgers is pissed at the OL because Sitton wants to take the ball out of his hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Right facts, wrong conclusion. think about it, we were able to pass effectively even 2+ score down - desperation time when everybody expected passes. So why would you say we should go back to what got us in those holes in the first place? Pass early; Pass often. I think Rodgers knows that and can't stand the tight leash on him. One of the commentators said last week, they are treating him like he's a second year QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossman641
I haven't said a bad word about McCarthy up to now, but if we are gonna salvage much of anything this season and get back to the top or near it next season, he will either have to go back to what put the Packers on top before - a pass first attack or just get the hell outta town.
But how much of that is Defenses playing back and trying to bleed clock? Allowing the Packers to continue drives with pass plays where previously they were coming after him with pressure, trying to get the ball out early while they are in press coverage?Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
I agree that the run game, no matter what Sitton says, is not going to rush successfully enough to sustain enough drives to score an acceptable number of points.
But I think pass wacky represents a real risk to this version of the team. This limited, they need to be balanced. At least balanced enough that play action or pistol gives them an edge they can exploit in the pass game.
Packer had to run before to get teams out of 2-high safety. Now they need to run to get teams cheating up to stop the run. But that's still not enough, because the Packers almost need 2TE to run. So one answer is a passing game out of the run formation featuring two tight ends, featuring Rodgers and Q.
I feel like there is a rift between us.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
They were able to pass effectively in those games because the D called off the hounds and sat back in a prevent. We've seen it happen 100 times from the reverse vantage point....Packers would get up big, defense would give up big yards in the 4th and a few scores, everyone would complain how MM and Capers weren't aggressive enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Even in those games where we have thrown effectively late, they still haven't been able to punch it in when it matters.
In many ways this year this would be ideal. But we have hope to see this before, a run pass balance in 2 TE sets. I just haven't seen them pass out of it successfully unless Cobb or Monty was in the backfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
This would be a great formation if the Packers had 2 dual-purpose (block and catch) TE's. Unfortunately the roster only has of no-purpose TE's.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
Rodgers seems able to catch most everything thrown to him. But he can't break a tackle. The solution would be to run him upfield 5-15 yards, settle down and catch passes thrown high to him. Q can block and catch marginally well. Rodgers struggles to run block but seems to be improving. The throws to the TEs might loosen up the man coverage, or at least the double teaming of Cobb, and might prevent a safety from just cheating at the line all the time. Still, none of this works if the O-line can't block, and that's been the biggest trouble of late with all the injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
Too bad the Fat Man has been hurt as well. I was predicting great things for him late in the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
Well then ..that's the end of MM. :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
I've always known that a lot of good thing result from things coming up in hot tubs.
Other season's we screamed about MM for NOT running the ball ,or especially after he established that run in the first half and that almost disappeared in the second half.Quote:
Originally Posted by denverYooper
What did AR have to do in the past... with MM turning over to go all pass happy 'O' and almost neglecting the rush?
MM has been trying more running plays.
That reduces ARod's perceived STAR power. That then piss's ARod off.
MM obviously see's something wrong with ARod in practise....otherwise why game plan on 'O' and uncharacteristically a more balance both half's rushing attack.
We'll soon learn that MM and ARod are really close...that what we see we don't see.
What I want to see is for ARod to show more genuine leadership during games ...to stop with all the silly ass facial expressions.
To get the ball on the money to his WR's on realistic routes. Not for the offensive genius whomever to imagine that Jordy Nelson is replaceable with the rag tag WR's that TT has supplied to MM.
If there's a rift bhetween MM and AROd. It's up to TT to settle that like as soon as that started.
My goodness: This is me standing up 'FOR MM'.
The Green Bay Packers need a new name and image based in TRUTH.
In suggest this name is very appropriate:
The GREEN BAY PROCRASTINATORS.
It takes what seems like forever for TT to take the fricken' calf by the horns and flip it. He's always ....always has been ...........asleep at the wheel.
You like big butts and you cannot lieQuote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
That's what your mother said.
Bump.
See OP, http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...l=1#post867992
for Sitton being pretty vanilla in describing a rift on a dysfunctional offense.
The usual, his rectum.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand