More Banjo: Conference @ Atlanta

[pbmax]

How bad was the game? One of McGinn's stars of the game was Don Barclay, who actually was pretty clean.

[vince]

PB you have no idea what the game plan going in was, or what adjustments were or were not made, or what they did or didn't practice all week. Period. The fact that the results were impacted by missed scoring opportunities and the defense repeatedly failing to stop the Falcons, thus forcing the Packers hand says nothing whatsoever about the Packers game planning or lack of adjustments. You're simply taking results and forcing a narrative to fit the story you want to tell.

[Rutnstrut]

PB you have no idea what the game plan going in was, or what adjustments were or were not made, or what they did or didn't practice all week. Period. The fact that the results were impacted by missed scoring opportunities and the defense repeatedly failing to stop the Falcons, thus forcing the Packers hand says nothing whatsoever about the Packers game planning or lack of adjustments. You're simply taking results and forcing a narrative to fit the story you want to tell.

Regardless of gameplan, the Packers sucked ass on Sunday.

[vince]

The Packers started the game with two strong drives that were both foiled by the missed field goal and the fumble. The next thing they knew they were down 17-0, which forced them to become more one-dimensional and allowed the falcons to pin their ears back.

Rodgers threw for 3 TD's with an INT and the team rushed for 99 yards but the game was over at that point due to the defense's inability to get any stops to help the Packers claw back into it.

Nothing the offense could or could not do would have had any impact, particularly when the defense begs you to run it but you can't afford to because you're so far behind already.

[vince]

Here are the drives for the game.

ATL - TD
GB - Missed FG
ATL - FG
GB - Fumble
ATL - TD
GB - Punt (Cobb stopped 2 yds. short of 1st down on 3rd)
ATL - Punt
GB - INT
ATL - TD

HALFTIME

GB - Punt
ATL - TD
GB - TD
ATL - TD
GB - TD
ATL - TD
GB - TD
ATL - Punt
GB - END OF GAME

[Rutnstrut]

Their so called gameplan sucked from the beginning when they decided to defer.

[red]

They only ran the ball one or two times those first 2 drives

So I'm gonna guess their game plan probably looked a lot like those first 2 drives. Throw, throw and throw some more. No matter what the score was

[vince]

Packers 1st Drive
1 Run for 4 yds.
5 Passes for 48 yds.

Packers 2nd Drive
2 Runs for 15 yds. with a fumble
4 Passes for 49 yds.

The run-pass mix worked well the first two drives, notwithstanding the fumble and missed FG.

Those miscues along with the defense's failure to stop the Falcons caused the game to get out of hand quickly. It wasn't the game plan. Wake up.

[Freak Out]

I have no idea what the trends show but I thought they should have started on offense if given the chance. Not sure what difference it would have made in the end but just like the idea.

[vince]

I have no idea what the trends show but I thought they should have started on offense if given the chance. Not sure what difference it would have made in the end but just like the idea.

Yeah given the fact that the defense couldn't get off the field on repeated 3rd down conversions right from the get-go, that obviously would have been the thing to do. If they just make one third down stop things might have been different.

I know that Rodgers loves to defer because of the chance to double up going in and out of halftime.

Obviously deferring went as bad as it possibly could have, but it's hard to argue that taking the ball first would have made a big difference. Atlanta simply had their way with GB's D all day.

[pbmax]

PB you have no idea what the game plan going in was, or what adjustments were or were not made, or what they did or didn't practice all week. Period. The fact that the results were impacted by missed scoring opportunities and the defense repeatedly failing to stop the Falcons, thus forcing the Packers hand says nothing whatsoever about the Packers game planning or lack of adjustments. You're simply taking results and forcing a narrative to fit the story you want to tell.

I have the first two drives that were relatively successful to tell us something about the game plan. There were some shorter passes, a comeback to Jordy and one throw to Cook that were medium depth early on but those were less frequent as the game went on. I think I even said after the second drive that I liked the play calling thus far. It mirrored what worked against the Cowboys early.

But they stopped working after the second drive. Pressure, aggressive coverage and drops killed it. After that, guessing the game plan is a crap shoot because as McGinn notes, Monty got banged up a couple of times in the game and had to come out, making a hash of the running plan. With a big lead by halftime, I am sure M3's play calling was affected.

But mostly, what I know is what was not there. Multiple attempts to spring receivers open early by running bunches, picks, rubs or crossing routes right off the LOS.

There were 3 attempts to get Cook into the flat with WR blocking. He dropped the first two. But that was it.

And the Falcons ran the same pressures the Cowboys did in the second half, delayed ILB blitzes up the middle and DB pressure off the edge. The team never solved it.

Throwing short on man beaters is not an offense. But it will help an offense stuck in neutral against a team playing man with pressure.

What this tells me is that after 2 years of some brutal offense (and 5 years of tape of this happening against some good teams) McCarthy still does not know how to overcome this limitation of his offense.

EDIT: Stan Albeck was the coach, Hubie was doing color commentary. And it was 1984, the year after the Championship.

A long time ago, Billy "Kangaroo Kid" Cunningham was a celebrated player turned coach for the 76ers. He would win a title with the team in 1983. He got into the playoffs one year as one of the three best teams in the League. Sixers pulled the Nets in the first round of the playoffs. The Nets were hopelessly outmatched physically and had finished well behind the 76ers in the East standings. I think the Nets only had Albert King, but my dates might be wrong. EDIT: also Otis Birdsong, Darryl Dawkins and Michael Richardson.

Albeck threw a half court trap at the Sixers sometime in the first two games and the Sixers never completely solved it. Despite having Maurice Cheeks, one of the best point guards of the era. Cunningham just did not know how to teach this group how to overcome this tactic. He was a good coach with a horrendous blind spot. Nets went on to win 4-2 I think in an ugly series where the Sixers offense never really took flight. His assistants were unable to help apparently. EDIT: it was 3-2 (best of five series)

McCarthy is now on year 6 of facing this kind of defense and he hasn't solved it. In fact, while injuries probably hurt here, the teams that can run this successfully against the Packers are less talented than before. The Packers have not exactly stood still, they have done some things; the entire scramble drill offense is part of it.

But pressure like we saw in the last 6 quarters makes a hash of that plan. And if the old 49ers D 4 man rush or the Vikings Spy5 get pressure, it doesn't matter.

He needs his base offense that is available in every game, regardless of game plan, to include concepts that will force a team out of man. His WR are talented enough to carry this out. Kyle freaking Shanahan was able to do this with Robert Griffin and Pierre Garçon and Matt Ryan without Julio Jones. His whole offense runs sideways.

If McCarthy gets beat in the pre game scouting department, its lights out for the offense because of this inflexibility.

[vince]

But they stopped working after the second drive. Pressure, aggressive coverage and drops killed it. After that, guessing the game plan is a crap shoot because as McGinn notes, Monty got banged up a couple of times in the game and had to come out, making a hash of the running plan. With a big lead by halftime, I am sure M3's play calling was affected.

But mostly, what I know is what was not there. Multiple attempts to spring receivers open early by running bunches, picks, rubs or crossing routes right off the LOS.

There were 3 attempts to get Cook into the flat with WR blocking. He dropped the first two. But that was it.

And the Falcons ran the same pressures the Cowboys did in the second half, delayed ILB blitzes up the middle and DB pressure off the edge. The team never solved it.

Throwing short on man beaters is not an offense. But it will help an offense stuck in neutral against a team playing man with pressure.

What this tells me is that after 2 years of some brutal offense (and 5 years of tape of this happening against some good teams) McCarthy still does not know how to overcome this limitation of his offense.
...
McCarthy is now on year 6 of facing this kind of defense and he hasn't solved it. In fact, while injuries probably hurt here, the teams that can run this successfully against the Packers are less talented than before. The Packers have not exactly stood still, they have done some things; the entire scramble drill offense is part of it.

But pressure like we saw in the last 6 quarters makes a hash of that plan. And if the old 49ers D 4 man rush or the Vikings Spy5 get pressure, it doesn't matter.

He needs his base offense that is available in every game, regardless of game plan, to include concepts that will force a team out of man. His WR are talented enough to carry this out. Kyle freaking Shanahan was able to do this with Robert Griffin and Pierre Garçon and Matt Ryan without Julio Jones. His whole offense runs sideways.

If McCarthy gets beat in the pre game scouting department, its lights out for the offense because of this inflexibility.

PB how is it that the offense has been so consistently elite if McCarthy doesn’t know how to beat man coverage? If that were the case, we’d have seen the downfall of McCarthy years ago. That assertion is without foundation and quite simply not real.

The only period when this offense wasn't highly effective against man, zone, pressure, coverage, or whatever combination you want to offer is during the time when their personnel lacked the ability to get separation due to the fact that they had no one who could threaten deep and down the middle of the field due to injuries to key players. They couldn’t beat man coverage because they didn’t have the players to separate from man coverage, regardless of motion, stacks, crossers, rubs, or other traditional man-beater tactics.

Now, we can perhaps both agree that McCarthy (rightfully) likes to beat man coverage in innovative ways that take full advantage of the unique talents of his quarterback, but you can hardly say he doesn't know how to do it. Just because he doesn't do it in traditional ways doesn't mean he doesn't do it.

Packers Offensive Rank (Points)
2016 4th
2015 15th
2014 1st
2013 8th
2012 5th
2011 1st
2010 10th
2009 3rd
2008 5th

If what you say has any realistic merit, you’d think teams would just man up on them and stop them wouldn’t you? Again, they did that pretty effectively the second half of last year due to a lack of healthy talent, and to a far lesser extent this year before Nelson and Cook ramped up, but they've proven they can consistently (not every play, or even every drive, but consistently over time) beat whatever you want to throw at them - until they are forced into a one-dimensional game and/or they come up against a truly dominant defense.

That's just what the actual history shows. Your "2 years of brutal offense and 5 years of problems" and the rest of your narrative just has no basis in reality.

[beveaux1]

I think one of the reasons the Packers had problems with the corner blitzes and delayed blitzes was not having Lacy, Starks, or Kuhn to pick up those blitzers. As much as I like Monty, he has not learned how to block for Rodgers. Ripper is still a work in progress, and Michael...I don't know what to say about Michael.

[pbmax]

If what you say has any realistic merit, you’d think teams would just man up on them and stop them wouldn’t you? Again, they did that pretty effectively the second half of last year due to a lack of healthy talent, and to a far lesser extent this year before Nelson and Cook ramped up, but they've proven they can beat whatever you want to throw at them - until they are forced into a one-dimensional game and/or they come up against a truly dominant defense.

That's just what the actual history shows. Your "2 years of brutal offense" and the rest of your narrative just has no basis in reality.

I really respect most of your argument along these lines. I am arguing a set of facts that seem to apply only in certain conditions (against good defenses and in close games). But to say that the offensive results in 2015 and 2016 did not represent some "brutal offense" is breathtaking. That 20 or 21 game streak was horrid on offense. Perhaps average for other franchises, but brutal for the Packers, their coach and their talent. And the loss on Sunday looked similar to that streak. You certainly could argue that the Defensive collapsed masked the improvement of the offense mid year this year, but the streak was still awful.

But put that aside, and let's revisit the 2013 playoff game at Lambeau versus the 49ers. It was an offense that featured Lacy, Starks, Nelson, Cobb and Jones. The 49ers D was very good but was off its pinnacle, having some injuries along the D line and a new safety that had replaced one of their best players.

Unlike the Seahawks (who McCarthy and Rodgers have puzzled out), the 49ers played Cover 2 man. If you rematched this game, you would recognize the failure of short passes to sustain the offense and when the longer attempts bore no fruit, they had no way to even flip field position. Rodger spent the entire game trying to get deep against Cover 2 outside, where you saw the Packers surrender some big plays to Sanu just last weekend.

It wasn't working and the offense stalled several times. 5 of nine drives ended in punts and the Packers only had a brief 3 point lead in the second quarter. Rodgers finished 17 of 26 for 177 yards and touchdown. His long pass was 26 yards and his completion percentage was 65%. The run game was effective at 31 carries for 124 yards. But those five drives that resulted in zero points? They netted 1 yard total.

The defense for the Packers was more brutal that the offense, though it held up pretty well until the end of the game. Compared to the previous two efforts against Kapernick, they looked lights out until the last drive. Packers were without a CB or two (Shields) and had House on Crabtree and Matthews was limited by the thumb/club I think.

Condition of that defense:

A depleted Packers defense -- already playing without linebacker Clay Matthews -- lost two more starters Sunday in cornerback Sam Shields and linebacker Mike Neal -- but still managed to hold its own against the Niners.

Rodgers view of how the offense played?

"Very disappointing, personally," Rodgers said. "It's frustrating not to play your best game in tough conditions. Defense holds them to 23 points. We should win that game."

It has not improved. The same template for good Defenses still applies as it has since Kansas City did it in 2011 to break the win streak.

[pbmax]

I think one of the reasons the Packers had problems with the corner blitzes and delayed blitzes was not having Lacy, Starks, or Kuhn to pick up those blitzers. As much as I like Monty, he has not learned how to block for Rodgers. Ripper is still a work in progress, and Michael...I don't know what to say about Michael.

Agreed. That is one reason why Ripper is out there more often than you might expect. Taylor being the Guard and Linsley's inability to detect a delayed blitz hurt too.