Official Packers vs. Chargers Game Day Thread

[sharpe1027]

I am aware. I was just hoping during the play, since he has time to secure the first down and prepare to get swarmed by three guys, that he would choose to go down in bounds. Even if it only saves 10 seconds, you do that three times and suddenly SD is calling TOs outside the red zone.

I guess, but it is really splitting hairs to complain about it here. As hard as he was running, it would have been difficult to avoid a big collision. He probably does not have the QB slide in his repertoire. In this case it was probably a good thing he went out since he ended up fumbling the ball.

[yetisnowman]

honestly, someone is giving Rodgers a hard time for going out of bounds? If I recall, SD had plenty of time and three TOs. Given how poorly the O was playing, it's a miracle they moved the ball and scored points in the second half, let alone tried to dictate the clock late in the game.

And as I said SD ended the game with 0 timeouts and 15 seconds left. And yes the O was playing poor, that's why burning as much clock near midfield on first down, up four pts, with 6 minutes left was a smart move minimizing the amount of time we leave Rivers with if/when he got the ball back. First down was in the bag, he gained no yards getting out of bounds and had he stayed in we could have snapped the ball around 5:30 instead of 5:50.

[yetisnowman]

The offense scored 27 points on 9 possessions. I'm not sure the problem is all that big.

What concerns me is the feast or famine thing. 4 out of 9 possessions were 3 and outs, and 4 out of the last 6. Also in the redzone at the end of the game we needed a TD to secure the victory, and couldn't make the plays. The pattern of this team getting fgs instead of tds in big spots gets tiresome. It all worked out. I just hope we get healthy real soon, our offense is completely out of wack .

[mraynrand]

And as I said SD ended the game with 0 timeouts and 15 seconds left. And yes the O was playing poor, that's why burning as much clock near midfield on first down, up four pts, with 6 minutes left was a smart move minimizing the amount of time we leave Rivers with if/when he got the ball back. First down was in the bag, he gained no yards getting out of bounds and had he stayed in we could have snapped the ball around 5:30 instead of 5:50.

So what? If, if if. If Rodgers runs some clock, then SD just adjust later. They had four plays from inside the 5. They had tons of time, and they would have had plenty of time had Rodgers slid or whatever. SD had totally control of their offense. They lose a few seconds here, they make it up elsewhere. Tons of time and TOs left when they got the ball again. So what if they lose a TO? Then Rivers just spikes the ball. Up until the last stand, they were moving at will. If you noticed, on the last drive, before the final stand, they only had two second downs as opposed to 7 first downs.



GB's offense was so anemic, it's a miracle they scored as much as they did in the second half. Packers had just about zero ability to affect the game by running the clock on offense. They could hardly get a first down to save their lives.

[yetisnowman]

So what? If, if if. If Rodgers runs some clock, then SD just adjust later. They had four plays from inside the 5. They had tons of time, and they would have had plenty of time had Rodgers slid or whatever. SD had totally control of their offense. They lose a few seconds here, they make it up elsewhere. Tons of time and TOs left when they got the ball again. So what if they lose a TO? Then Rivers just spikes the ball. Up until the last stand, they were moving at will. If you noticed, on the last drive, before the final stand, they only had two second downs as opposed to 7 first downs.



GB's offense was so anemic, it's a miracle they scored as much as they did in the second half. Packers had just about zero ability to affect the game by running the clock on offense. They could hardly get a first down to save their lives.

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession. I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage. You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

[sharpe1027]

Yes, there was no time on the clock because SD purposely ran the clock down so that the Packers would not have time to score. 10 seconds did not make any difference in this game. Might it have in another situation? Yes. Would it have benefited or hurt the Packers? It depends.

[sharpe1027]

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession. I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage. You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

Hold on! I gave you at least three reasons. There were even nicely numbered for future reference!

[mraynrand]

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession.

So can I. But for an offense that can barely move the ball, running the clock is a lower priority.

I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage.

I didn't make this argument. Perhaps others did. Does it have to make sense? It sounds like a straw man argument, as though you're arguing that Rodgers deliberately hurdled out of bounds to gain no yardage. Perhaps he just tried to gain more yardage and failed. Also, it's very likely that he isn't thinking at all about clock management, given that the offense can barely move the ball.

You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

Strawman again. Who is 'throwing clock management out the window?' what if it's just a secondary or tertiary concern to getting very tough to get first downs and getting in scoring range? Do you know what the thinking was on the sidelines or what was being relayed to the players?

[yetisnowman]

More time would have run off the clock, which probably would have helped. I have a few minor issues with making anything out of that though.

1) I think that he was trying to hurdle the tackler and keep going, he wasn't trying to run out of bounds.
2) With that much time left and the way they were moving the ball, it is hard to know whether running of the extra time would help or hurt. Sure, on average it would help, but the value of running clock was still relatively low.
3) Cutting back in to take on a tackler coming full blast from the side is a fumble waiting to happen. I think he actually fumbled it after the hit, so we are lucky he went out of bounds.

1) In my opinion he was not seriously trying to hurdle the defenders and stay in bounds this isn't carl lewis here, he knew he would end up out of bounds and made a choice at the end of the play to not stay in bounds. Now maybe that was just instinct and no thought was given.
2)I think that around midfield, with the ball, and a fresh set of downs up 4 pts and between 5-6 minutes left is a time you basically always want the clock to be running.
3)I don't think he really had to cut back in towards the defenders, as opposed to just not angling himself out of bounds. He is supposed to be able to take some contact without fumbling. I think he let the ball loose basically because he flipped upside down and knew he was out of bounds.

[yetisnowman]

So can I. But for an offense that can barely move the ball, running the clock is a lower priority.




I didn't make this argument. Perhaps others did. Does it have to make sense? It sounds like a straw man argument, as though you're arguing that Rodgers deliberately hurdled out of bounds to gain no yardage. Perhaps he just tried to gain more yardage and failed. Also, it's very likely that he isn't thinking at all about clock management, given that the offense can barely move the ball.



Strawman again. Who is 'throwing clock management out the window?' what if it's just a secondary or tertiary concern to getting very tough to get first downs and getting in scoring range? Do you know what the thinking was on the sidelines or what was being relayed to the players?

Again up 4, Midfield, fresh set of downs, 5-6 minutes to go I'm quite sure the book says you want the clock running. Whether you anticipate the drive ending in a punt, TD, or a FG. Yes it should be secondary to getting first downs, which is why I'm saying the savvy play would have been to stay in bounds AFTER he knew he had the first and there were clearly no more yards up the sideline.

[pbmax]

If he was hustling to get a first down, I understand. He has the first by a comfortable margin.

[sharpe1027]

1) In my opinion he was not seriously trying to hurdle the defenders and stay in bounds this isn't carl lewis here, he knew he would end up out of bounds and made a choice at the end of the play to not stay in bounds. Now maybe that was just instinct and no thought was given.
2)I think that around midfield, with the ball, and a fresh set of downs up 4 pts and between 5-6 minutes left is a time you basically always want the clock to be running.
3)I don't think he really had to cut back in towards the defenders, as opposed to just not angling himself out of bounds. He is supposed to be able to take some contact without fumbling. I think he let the ball loose basically because he flipped upside down and knew he was out of bounds.

1 - He was angling toward the sidelines because that got him the most yards. Could he have stopped his momentum and turned back in? Probably, but he's not one to turn on a dime so he probably would have given up a fair amount of yardage.
2) Yes, but the advantage at this point of the game is so slight. I think that it was nearly as likely that they would need a drive of their own as not.
3) The risk of fumbling is still there, and it is highlighted by the speed and number of defenders closing in.

In short, you are correct that it is probably statistically a slightly better option if he had cut back inside, but the difference is so slight that who really cares?

[Cheesehead Craig]

The play started at 6:14
The next play started at 5:51

So if the play clock and game clock don't start until the ball is spotted by the official on the sidelines (given it was not 5 min left), how is it DickRod's fault? Both clocks should have started at the same time. Unless the play clock started when the ref had the spot on the sidelines and the game clock didn't start until the ball was set on the hashmark on the field and the official signaled a start to the game clock.

How long would it have taken for the pass play in total? Like 7 seconds before he goes out of bounds? If that's the case, he didn't go out until the 6:07 mark. Why did the Pack run another play only 16 seconds later?

If the play clock was at 1 or 2 seconds (which would be common for a team milking the clock) when the next play started, that would mean that the refs took 23 seconds to set the ball at the hashmarks and start the game clock from when DickRod ran out of bounds and the sideline official set the ball on the sidelines from where he ran out of bounds. That doesn't seem plausible to me.

Unless we can see the play clock from the play, to me it seems like the Pack snapped the ball too soon on the following play.

[sharpe1027]

Cheesehead, I am pretty sure that the Packers were not running the clock down all the way on each play that drive. A few seconds are not that big of a deal in that situation.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Cheesehead, I am pretty sure that the Packers were not running the clock down all the way on each play that drive. A few seconds are not that big of a deal in that situation.

I'm with you on this. Just trying to look at this from the numbers standpoint. I don't think the Packers lost 15-20 seconds of the clock running down on the play with him going out of bounds. The numbers don't match the theory, IMO.