Rodgers has the solution

[Bretsky]

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!!!!!

It's closer when you have a shitty punter like we do; of course that a whole nother evalution

Last week the net average was under 25 yards

Agree with sentiment that AROD needs to be better than last week at his pocket awareness and make some occasionally wise decisions to chuck the ball away

[TravisWilliams23]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

[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!!!!!

It's closer when you have a shitty punter like we do; of course that a whole nother evalution

Last week the net average was under 25 yards

Agree with sentiment that AROD needs to be better than last week at his pocket awareness and make some occasionally wise decisions to chuck the ball away

Yeah. Don't get me wrong. When Bert use to toss a long int on 3rd that wasn't really returned...ty would say..."we'll it is like a punt" and feel mildly ok. Ty believes this is called a rationalization...and they are important in Ty's life....especially regarding Wisco sports (ty went a decade with daily rationalizations regarding the Crew).

I think his idea is sound about getting more receivers out. I think it was the GBPG that said on the play rodgers fumbled on (rey got him) that there were 8 in to block....well, fuck, of course he is going to hold the ball...meanwhile Hall whiffs. Fuck, if you got 8 back there he should have all day to pass.

[/i]

[Jerry Tagge]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

Rodgers doesn't have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, nor does he have Davis, Nitschke, Adderly, and Wood on defense.

Comparing the 2009 Packers to any of Lombardi's teams is comparing apples and oranges.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

Rodgers doesn't have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, nor does he have Davis, Nitschke, Adderly, and Wood on defense.

Comparing the 2009 Packers to any of Lombardi's teams is comparing apples and oranges.

He isn't.

Unless you believe Vince changed his coaching fundamentals according to his personnel.

[Jerry Tagge]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

Rodgers doesn't have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, nor does he have Davis, Nitschke, Adderly, and Wood on defense.

Comparing the 2009 Packers to any of Lombardi's teams is comparing apples and oranges.

He isn't.

Unless you believe Vince changed his coaching fundamentals according to his personnel.

Any coach who doesn't change according to his personnel is, well, Mike McCarthy.

Throwing the ball away is preferable to taking a sack. Crosby wouldn't have had to try a 55 yarder before halftime if Rodgers didn't take the sack.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

Rodgers doesn't have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, nor does he have Davis, Nitschke, Adderly, and Wood on defense.

Comparing the 2009 Packers to any of Lombardi's teams is comparing apples and oranges.

He isn't.

Unless you believe Vince changed his coaching fundamentals according to his personnel.

Any coach who doesn't change according to his personnel is, well, Mike McCarthy.

Throwing the ball away is preferable to taking a sack. Crosby wouldn't have had to try a 55 yarder before halftime if Rodgers didn't take the sack.

No. You are talking strategy, not fundamentals.

Vince and others teach the same fundamentals of the game regardless...ball control, taking a sack over a int, winning the line of scrimmage, etc...and then find the players who can do that. They have a consistent view on what it takes to win. THink parcells..and parcell's guys.

Of course throwing away is better than a sack, nobody is disputing it. But, taking a sack is better than throwing an int.

You can look at the crosby field goal your way..which is correct..or we can also say, that no fg woulda been attemped if he threw an int. A 55 fg is has a far better chance of being made than no attempt.

[Jerry Tagge]

I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away.

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception. But he then said in the interview, "all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long!"

My thoughts on that are: Vince Lombardi was the coach and his credentials are pretty good and if Lombardi stressed to Starr to take a sack instead of a possible pick, that's the direction I'd lean to. Can't argue too much with the success those teams had with the "take a sack' philosophy.

Rodgers doesn't have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, nor does he have Davis, Nitschke, Adderly, and Wood on defense.

Comparing the 2009 Packers to any of Lombardi's teams is comparing apples and oranges.

He isn't.

Unless you believe Vince changed his coaching fundamentals according to his personnel.

Any coach who doesn't change according to his personnel is, well, Mike McCarthy.

Throwing the ball away is preferable to taking a sack. Crosby wouldn't have had to try a 55 yarder before halftime if Rodgers didn't take the sack.

No. You are talking strategy, not fundamentals.

Vince and others teach the same fundamentals of the game regardless...ball control, taking a sack over a int, winning the line of scrimmage, etc...and then find the players who can do that. They have a consistent view on what it takes to win. THink parcells..and parcell's guys.

Of course throwing away is better than a sack, nobody is disputing it. But, taking a sack is better than throwing an int.

You can look at the crosby field goal your way..which is correct..or we can also say, that no fg woulda been attemped if he threw an int. A 55 fg is has a far better chance of being made than no attempt.

I'm not talking about taking a sack vs an INT, I'm talking about THROWING THE BALL AWAY. This means throwing it out of bounds or where nobody is around. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Of course taking a sack is preferable to throwing an interception but that's not what I'm talking about. Throwing an incomplete pass is preferable to taking a sack.

There are more options than take a sack or throw an interception. If you're telling me Rodgers can't throw the ball away without throwing an INT, then it's time to start Matt Flynn. This whole throwing the ball away means throwing an interception is a bogus argument.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, considering the conversation was about int vs. sack...and the post you replied to...was about bart and taking a sack vs. int.

You might wanna clue us in when you feel like discussing whatever you feel like.

[mraynrand]

"I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away. "

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"I remember watching a DVD on the 60's Packers and Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away. "

Well, Jerry being the good teammate, defended Bart for not taking a chance and turning the ball over with an interception.

[mraynrand]

"Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away."

"all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long"

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Jerry Kramer was telling a story about some reporters stating that Bart Starr sometimes really holds onto the ball and takes a sack instead of throwing it away."

"all the lineman thought Bart held the ball too damned long"

We can dance around all nite, but the fact is that it was brought up in the context of the discussion of whether ints were comparable to sacks. And that is irrefutable.

That was the discussion. Bye.

[Noodle]

If my memory is correct, the majority of the sacks have occurred while Rodgers was within the tackle box. To "throw it away" and avoid an intentional grounding call, he's going to have to heave the ball in the vicinity of a receiver. He just can't chuck it out of bounds like you can do when you're outside the box.

If all the receivers are running routes of 10 yards or more, it's going to be tough to get the ball in the vicinity without getting a pick, especially if the defense is applying pressure with 4 and dropping 7.

So "throwing it away" may not be a good option in the situations where Rodgers has found himself under pressure.

Should he throw it sooner? Again, depends on the routes. So it's hard to carp on him without know what was going on down field.

[MOBB DEEP]

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.

And YOUR favorite cat favre HAS learned; NO ints and PLENTY sacks this year...he gets better w/age