Rodgers has the solution

[Brando19]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090923/PKR01/90923177/1058

Aaron Rodgers said the line needs to fend for themselves...without help from running backs and tight ends. He wants more players to check down to. Makes sense...but he better be ready to get rid of the ball quick.

[mraynrand]

Re: Rodgers' has the solution

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090923/PKR01/90923177/1058


Aaron Rodgers said the line needs to fend for themselves...without help from running backs and tight ends. He wants more players to check down to. Makes sense...but he better be ready to get rid of the ball quick.

Damn straight. Ease up a little on the 7 and 9 step drop backs.

Packers will get a chance to see a team that pretty much does nothing but check down in St. Louis this week.

[Scott Campbell]

Aaron needs to get familiar with the phrase "intentional grounding".

[pbmax]

Aaron needs to get familiar with the phrase "intentional grounding".

Would being planted into artificial turf by the Right Defensive End qualify?

[pbmax]

Re: Rodgers has the solution

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090923/PKR01/90923177/1058


Aaron Rodgers said the line needs to fend for themselves...without help from running backs and tight ends. He wants more players to check down to. Makes sense...but he better be ready to get rid of the ball quick.

“I think one of the things that happened last week was because of struggles (in protection) in Week 1, we’ve kept more guys in (to block),” Rodgers said. “Our backs were staying in a little bit longer, and so our stuff was all down the field because we didn’t have any of our check downs out.

"The push, hopefully, this is week is, ‘Hey you guys got to hold up up front.’ We need more options underneath the coverage. When they’re dropping off so far, you need some check downs.”

It might seem counterintuitive that the guy who’s been getting killed — 10 sacks and 19 hits in two games — wants less protection, but the logic is that by keeping in running backs and tight ends less often, Rodgers will have more options to get the ball out quicker if he’s facing pressure. Against the Bengals, many of his throws were deep because there were so few short options

If true then I have no problem with the logic in it. I might feel differently when Flynn is in at QB though....

[rbaloha1]

Aaron needs to get familiar with the phrase "intentional grounding".

AR does hold the ball too long on occasion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'd rather he held the ball than throw ints.

Man, some fans have no memory. It is a learning process..for Arod, just as it was for Bert.

Or did we all forget Bert winging ints on the run....and pack fans cheering in the stands when he finally learned to throw it away.

this is Arod's second year. Give him some time.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd rather he held the ball than throw ints.

Man, some fans have no memory. It is a learning process..for Arod, just as it was for Bert.

I'd like to see the guy throw it away on occasion. Those sacks are nearly as bad as turnovers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'd rather he held the ball than throw ints.

Man, some fans have no memory. It is a learning process..for Arod, just as it was for Bert.

I'd like to see the guy throw it away on occasion. Those sacks are nearly as bad as turnovers.

Learning process.

Sacks aren't even close to being as bad as a turnover.

[Rastak]

I'd rather he held the ball than throw ints.

Man, some fans have no memory. It is a learning process..for Arod, just as it was for Bert.

I'd like to see the guy throw it away on occasion. Those sacks are nearly as bad as turnovers.

Learning process.

Sacks aren't even close to being as bad as a turnover.

Depends. That was a sweeping statement.

TY: Do i have to continue to embarrass you?

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=18717&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'd rather he held the ball than throw ints.

Man, some fans have no memory. It is a learning process..for Arod, just as it was for Bert.

I'd like to see the guy throw it away on occasion. Those sacks are nearly as bad as turnovers.

Learning process.

Sacks aren't even close to being as bad as a turnover.

Depends. That was a sweeping statement.

TY: Do i have to continue to embarrass you?

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=18717&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

At worst, a sack loses you field position. Nothing more.

Int gives the other team the ball immediately and the chance to score.

Sacks aren't closet to being as bad as Ints. Coaches would much rather have you take a sack than throw an int or throw the ball into precarious situations.

The coach would of course prefer, if given time, you throw the ball away.

[Rastak]

Sounds like you thought it all the way through. LOL.....

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sounds like you thought it all the way through. LOL.....

Sounds like you haven't.

According to research done by football outsiders....ints on average cost you 4 points and 40 yards of field position.

That is a hell of a lot worse than a sack.

[Rastak]

Majority of time, yes. Blanket statement, no.



Sometimes a pick is as good as a punt.......depends. Think about it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Majority of time, yes. Blanket statement, no.



Sometimes a pick is as good as a punt.......depends. Think about it.

As good...that is the best possible way to look at it...as opposed to completing the pass?

BTW, that actually has no bearing...as we are comparing a sack to an int.

And, unless you have some stats to show that the average punt results in 4 points and results in 40 yard field position..no, it isn't.

Of course there are exceptions....i just hope that next time i present something like that....you will be quick to defend me and not say i'm parsing. this is going to be great!!!!!