Is Aaron Rodgers more of the problem than we might think?

[pbmax]

Is this MMQB non link the actual SI joint now run by Albert Breer or Peter King on PFT?

BTW, King to PFT rivals AOL buying Time Warner for ridiculousness?

[Joemailman]

Is this MMQB non link the actual SI joint now run by Albert Breer or Peter King on PFT?

BTW, King to PFT rivals AOL buying Time Warner for ridiculousness?

Breer

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/06/24/ja...ce=twitter.com

1. After a little digging around, here’s the best way I can explain where the Packers are on who-calls-what-gate: They’re working on it. For the last few years, Aaron Rodgers has pretty much total freedom to change what he’s wanted to (which did create friction with the old staff), set protections and improvise on the fly. Conversely, Matt LaFleur’s system, as we’ve written here in the past, is built to take all of that off the quarterback’s plate, in an effort to get the quarterback playing fast. So the spring, for the coaches and Rodgers, was about meshing the two. One example: Guys from the Sean McVay/Kyle Shanahan tree have become acquainted with what’s called the “double call.” The idea is for the coach to give the quarterback two calls, and a read to make the decision on which one is in on a given play. It’s great for younger quarterbacks, because it simplifies another element of the game, and safeguards them against snapping the offense into a bad call. Rodgers, on the other hand, has become accustomed to getting a play call and adjusting as he sees fit from there. So how will the Packers marry those two? As I understand it, the plan is to go with the double-call, while giving Rodgers the freedom to adjust past that. Similarly, as those systems have entrusted protection calls to the center (again, to get the quarterback faster), the Packers will train Corey Linsley to manage that area of the game, with Rodgers having power to make corrections. The hope here, of course, would be to get the best of both worlds—giving Rodgers the option, but not the obligation, to make changes on the fly, getting him playing faster on some snaps, while taking advantage of his knowhow on others. So let’s see how that works before we go crazy either way. It’d seem to have pretty good potential.

[pbmax]

I confess I think that it’s possible Breer talked to no one of import on this because none of this is new or news.

Linsley and the Guards have made line calls forever. Remember that video of Rodgers asking “where are we going?” as he put his hands under center?

McCarthy had the double play call.

The real question is what Rodgers does when the defense has sniffed the play out. Does he audible to an old play call, a new play call or let the soldiers charge the reinforced line.

The other unknown here is how early LaFleur wants him at the LOS in order to diagnose the defense over the radio pre snap. I think this one goes by the wayside.

[gbgary]

it would be a colossal mistake to bring in a coach, a completely different offense (that's dynamic and successful) and keep playing the stupid way they have been. the new O is designed to play fast, get the ball out quickly, make everyone a weapon, and keep the D off balance. it's not handcuffing rodgers. he won't need to "audible out of a run" ffs. everything's predicated off the D's reaction to the situation and the O's motion. there should be a lot less pressure on rodgers and the o-line. goff was sacked 16 fewer times than rodgers last year. he was better than rodgers in almost every catagory. outside of the two-minute o, scrambling (because he or someone else didn't do their job), or the defense doing something completely stupid pre-snap, rodgers shouldn't
go off-script, and i don't want to see it otherwise. it's not just rodgers being defiant, he'd be encouraging it from others...undermining MLF, proving he's uncoachable, and making the whole new-coach/offense process a waste of time...when there isn't any to waste. might as well have kept mccarthy.

[gbgary]

The real question is what Rodgers does when the defense has sniffed the play out. Does he audible to an old play call, a new play call or let the soldiers charge the reinforced line.

The other unknown here is how early LaFleur wants him at the LOS in order to diagnose the defense over the radio pre snap. I think this one goes by the wayside.

if they sniff something out then the O didn't execute or the wrong solution was chosen. both will get better with increased reps. i think the pre-snap diagnosis, at least the availability of it, will always be there. unless league mandated why would they let that go? it's invaluable.

[RashanGary]

I’m a fan of the New England Offense. They beat you by doing all the simple things better than anyone else. I’ve seen entire half’s of football where all Brady does is hand the ball off, throw short passes and dump the ball off in the flat. Play after play after play, he never seems to get bored just managing the game. Obviously when it comes time to make a play, part of Brady’s charm is he makes it. But New England or Tom Brady don’t go out of their way looking to make a certain kind of play. They take what’s given to them. Over. And over. And over.

Aaron Rodgers is an all time great. Just like Favre before him, he has his own spectacular style. And that’s cool. I appreciate it, and I’ll always be an Aaron Rodgers fan. BUT!!! When it comes to winning football games, his unwillingness to do some of the really simple, easy things that maybe don’t get glory, but move the chains.... it annoys me that he refuses to do some of the basics. Same way Favreea interceptions annoyed me.

[RashanGary]

When it comes to Favre and Rodgers, they’re equals to me. Favre was addicted to throwing into tight spaces and showing off his arm talent. Rodgers is addicted to the deep ball and showing off how smart he is. Both won a Super Bowl. Both HOF passers. Both ego driven. Favre did dump the ball off, hand it off and do simple shit. Eventually he had to take his reckless shot but 90% of the time he was just right. Aaron is super safe with the ball but refuses to take the easy yards so it’s feast or famine.

Brady makes far less spectacular plays than either of them. When I watch Brady, I think of the greatest game manager I’ve ever seen. And obviously he’s more than that. He’s accurate deep, medium or shallow. His pace and game awareness is amazing. He kind of does everything well. But he’s the greatest game manager because he’ll just dump the ball off 7 times in a row if that’s what they’re giving. If Rodgers had that humble, do the simple things well, mentality, the Packers night have a couple Super Bowls.

[RashanGary]

Another part of Brady’s charm is their offense looks so much simpler. They get to the line, everyone knows their job. It’s not a big communication circus where Brady is changing everything around. He gets there, everyone’s on the same page and he pushes pace by keeping it simple. It’s like death by a thousand paper cuts watching them kill their opponent. They make very few mistakes because their offense is simple. They just execute. I’m glad I got to watch Favre and Rodgers, but the greatest of my life crown goes to Tom Brady. Not even close.

[RashanGary]

And I thought Rodgers was gonna learn from the Favre stubbornness and rise to a new level. He ended up succumbing a different style, but same general personality flaw of having “bigger than the team” egoism. It’s too bad.

[pbmax]

it would be a colossal mistake to bring in a coach, a completely different offense (that's dynamic and successful) and keep playing the stupid way they have been. the new O is designed to play fast, get the ball out quickly, make everyone a weapon, and keep the D off balance. it's not handcuffing rodgers. he won't need to "audible out of a run" ffs. everything's predicated off the D's reaction to the situation and the O's motion. there should be a lot less pressure on rodgers and the o-line. goff was sacked 16 fewer times than rodgers last year. he was better than rodgers in almost every catagory. outside of the two-minute o, scrambling (because he or someone else didn't do their job), or the defense doing something completely stupid pre-snap, rodgers shouldn't
go off-script, and i don't want to see it otherwise. it's not just rodgers being defiant, he'd be encouraging it from others...undermining MLF, proving he's uncoachable, and making the whole new-coach/offense process a waste of time...when there isn't any to waste. might as well have kept mccarthy.

Remind me how the Atlanta Super Bowl ended? How'd that offense fare in the second half?

Kinda the same as the Rams in the last Super Bowl?

How did this offense do without Garapolo in San Fran last year?

No offense is designed to need to be saved on a play. Yet defenses stop offenses a fair amount. It doesn't matter how good the design is, defenses are good at their job.

[pbmax]

I’m a fan of the New England Offense. They beat you by doing all the simple things better than anyone else. I’ve seen entire half’s of football where all Brady does is hand the ball off, throw short passes and dump the ball off in the flat. Play after play after play, he never seems to get bored just managing the game. Obviously when it comes time to make a play, part of Brady’s charm is he makes it. But New England or Tom Brady don’t go out of their way looking to make a certain kind of play. They take what’s given to them. Over. And over. And over.

1. If all you need to do is execute the simple play, why doesn't Brian Schottenheimer's offense work better?

2. That offense looks far more pedestrian without Gronk.

3. New England goes VERY out of its way to make a certain play against a certain look. They want to see the defense and then exploit its vulnerability. They don't line up and simply expect to win each 1 on 1 matchup (unless its Gronk). The entire offense is designed to stress a defense at multiple points and that does include a short passing game.

[RashanGary]

1. If all you need to do is execute the simple play, why doesn't Brian Schottenheimer's offense work better?

2. That offense looks far more pedestrian without Gronk.

3. New England goes VERY out of its way to make a certain play against a certain look. They want to see the defense and then exploit its vulnerability. They don't line up and simply expect to win each 1 on 1 matchup (unless its Gronk). The entire offense is designed to stress a defense at multiple points and that does include a short passing game.

If Brady had an ego complex where he wanted big play glory and control of the offense, he could be much more than a game manager. And there are always a few plays a game where a perfect throw is needed and that guy is great and makes those throws. But the great majority of his snaps are game management type snaps. That’s what I appreciate most about Brady. He does all the simple things to damn near perfection and plays a game that would bore the great Favre or his highness Aaron. It’s worked well for him.

[pbmax]

If Brady had an ego complex where he wanted big play glory and control of the offense, he could be much more than a game manager. And there are always a few plays a game where a perfect throw is needed and that guy is great and makes those throws. But the great majority of his snaps are game management type snaps. That’s what I appreciate most about Brady. He does all the simple things to damn near perfection and plays a game that would bore the great Favre or his highness Aaron. It’s worked well for him.

Why is it everyone backpedals to the ego claim when all other arguments have failed?

What you call ego is offensive design, largely.

Please see 2016 offense again. When the ONLY offense available was his extended play offense. This was after 2 years of big offensive slowdowns and creeping shortness of routes. When asked about the fix for such things, prior to the start of 2016, the head coach said we need to do less scheming and more winning one on one battles.

When this offense tried to go short, it sputtered. The slowdowns in 2014, especially 2015 and the beginning of 2016 featured a TON of short routes that went nowhere. Just think about Dick Rod on a flat route. Really think about it fits into your narrative. I want you to think about why your ego mad QB kept throwing that stupid, failed, miserable route to Richard Rodgers. That route took 3 years off red's life expectancy. Who wanted that fu**ing route run?

Think about the WR bubble screens. Ego or offensive design? Those took 2 years off my life expectancy.

Sure, Rodgers will throw 4 deep passes more than Brady in a game on 3rd and short. When the offense had overwhelming talent outside, it worked like no one's business. When that talent edge started the crumble, the offense started to fail and that shot play cost them dearly at times. But it needed to work because it was the entire basis of the offense at that point.

That isn't ego. That is problematic design. Even when he was young and was the check down king, this offense never specialized in long, multi-play drives.

The McCarthy offense thrived on going deep and getting offenses into dime packages so it could run. When the deep passing game failed, it all started to come apart.

[pbmax]

There is a story about Michael Bay and a possible explanation of why his movies are a visual mess.

He is apparently a fan of other directors and specifically falls in love with certain shots they construct. He then imports those shots and frames into his movies. But it makes for a hodge-podge visual experience. Think about the end of Armageddon, the touchdown and the emotional, triumphant reunion of the drillers and their families. Its an emotional moment.

And in the middle of that moment, you get a military jet flyover (in formation I think). Completely different emotion. And the shot is a tracking shot overhead, kinda like the jet shots in the original Hawaii 5-0 opening credits. Its jarring and impressive and takes you away from the people in the scene. Puts the entire celebration on hold. Something that makes zero logical sense since this seems like a very impromptu celebration. It doesn't play into the emotion or pace of the scene, but its a tremendously arresting visual.

This shot happens right after Liv Tyler breaks from a pack of NASA and military folks to greet Ben Affleck. That moment is done pretty well, even if it plays a bit happy while you and everyone in the scene know that Dad, Bruce Willis, is now space debris. That is really giving away the bride. It might have been a missing man fountain, meant as a salute to Harry as Billy Bob Thornton and William Fichtner share kind words with Tyler about her father. But it doesn't play well without any transition.

So this great idea, pulled from another movie and individually brilliant, makes zero sense imported as it was into this movie. Would make far more sense for that flyover to happen during the parade later, right?

Mike McCarthy is Michael Bay. He had lots of neat ideas in his favorite play call list. But the whole of the offense never worked well together once they had a talent drop off. Things did not build off each other. It was all 1 on 1. The run game and the passing game were not connected except by numbers in the box. It got stale and the new elements weren't enough to re-open the base plays of the offense that everyone learned to subdue. He never adjusted to playing with lesser talent and making their job easier on the LOS. Because of the shortcomings of this offense, his QB invented a second offense. And that meant that young receivers were really behind the eight ball.

That is Michael Bay's failure, not Ben Affleck's.

[Fritz]

There is a story about Michael Bay and a possible explanation of why his movies are a visual mess.

He is apparently a fan of other directors and specifically falls in love with certain shots they construct. He then imports those shots and frames into his movies. But it makes for a hodge-podge visual experience. Think about the end of Armageddon, the touchdown and the emotional, triumphant reunion of the drillers and their families. Its an emotional moment.

And in the middle of that moment, you get a military jet flyover (in formation I think). Completely different emotion. And the shot is a tracking shot overhead, kinda like the jet shots in the original Hawaii 5-0 opening credits. Its jarring and impressive and takes you away from the people in the scene. Puts the entire celebration on hold. Something that makes zero logical sense since this seems like a very impromptu celebration. It doesn't play into the emotion or pace of the scene, but its a tremendously arresting visual.

This shot happens right after Liv Tyler breaks from a pack of NASA and military folks to greet Ben Affleck. That moment is done pretty well, even if it plays a bit happy while you and everyone in the scene know that Dad, Bruce Willis, is now space debris. That is really giving away the bride. It might have been a missing man fountain, meant as a salute to Harry as Billy Bob Thornton and William Fichtner share kind words with Tyler about her father. But it doesn't play well without any transition.

So this great idea, pulled from another movie and individually brilliant, makes zero sense imported as it was into this movie. Would make far more sense for that flyover to happen during the parade later, right?

Mike McCarthy is Michael Bay. He had lots of neat ideas in his favorite play call list. But the whole of the offense never worked well together once they had a talent drop off. Things did not build off each other. It was all 1 on 1. The run game and the passing game were not connected except by numbers in the box. It got stale and the new elements weren't enough to re-open the base plays of the offense that everyone learned to subdue. He never adjusted to playing with lesser talent and making their job easier on the LOS. Because of the shortcomings of this offense, his QB invented a second offense. And that meant that young receivers were really behind the eight ball.

That is Michael Bay's failure, not Ben Affleck's.

So if Michael Bay is Mike McCarthy and Ben Affleck is Aaron Rodgers, who is Liv Tyler?