More Banjo: Week 11 vs. Baltimore

[pbmax]

What is bugging me right now is the obvious comparison with New England last year when they started the season without Brady. First they lit it up with Garoppolo and then, when he went down, they plugged in a guy off the street (Brissett) who also managed to play at a respectable level. New England practically ddin't miss a beat with Brady out whereas the Packers going flying off the track and burst into a gigantic fireball when Rodgers goes down.

Is the talent level surrounding Brady that much higher than what GB has right now? Is Bellichick somehow able to prepare his anonymous third string QB (who has since proven to be human, all too human in Indy) better than what McCarthy can do over the course of three training camps? Or has he somehow managed to design a system in which anyone (except possibly Brian Brohm) could succeed whereas McCarthy implements a system that precisely one person on the planet is capable of running? I'm inclined to believe that the talent level surrounding Rodgers must be really low, but then we see guys who were marginal starters in GB (Hayward, Hyde) go on the excel elsewhere. So: low talent level combined with coaching staff that is incapable of recognizing what they have? I am mystified.

How the players are used is almost everything. Hayward was exceptional in zone and he is being used to his strengths in SD. He also got to face two interception machines yesterday.

McCarthy does not have a system that is easy to operate out of the box. It requires time to customize and he tinkers with it weekly. Just look at what he did to Hundley after the relative Chicago success. He pulled the run run pass offense in favor of pass run pass. And that got worse after Mays fumble.

Sometimes McCarthy forgets about the player and only thinks in terms of strategy or tactics. He has not adjusted to Hundley while Hundley is still adjusting to him. Quick change of scheme isn't a feature of this offense.

[Maxie the Taxi]

What is bugging me right now is the obvious comparison with New England last year when they started the season without Brady. First they lit it up with Garoppolo and then, when he went down, they plugged in a guy off the street (Brissett) who also managed to play at a respectable level. New England practically ddin't miss a beat with Brady out whereas the Packers going flying off the track and burst into a gigantic fireball when Rodgers goes down.

Is the talent level surrounding Brady that much higher than what GB has right now? Is Bellichick somehow able to prepare his anonymous third string QB (who has since proven to be human, all too human in Indy) better than what McCarthy can do over the course of three training camps? Or has he somehow managed to design a system in which anyone (except possibly Brian Brohm) could succeed whereas McCarthy implements a system that precisely one person on the planet is capable of running? I'm inclined to believe that the talent level surrounding Rodgers must be really low, but then we see guys who were marginal starters in GB (Hayward, Hyde) go on the excel elsewhere. So: low talent level combined with coaching staff that is incapable of recognizing what they have? I am mystified.

+1

Been wondering about that myself. I chalk it up to system. BellyCheck's system seems to be geared to plugging in new parts (he's usually quite active in FA market) AND to adjusting on the fly (he's not so locked into a certain way of doing things). Stubby's system and to a large extent Dom's system seems extremely complex, meaning it takes quite a bit of time to get new guys up to speed, AND Stubby seems locked into his system to the extent change seems difficult.

But then I'm on the outside looking in. I really am pretty much mystified as well.

[Cheesehead Craig]

What is bugging me right now is the obvious comparison with New England last year when they started the season without Brady. First they lit it up with Garoppolo and then, when he went down, they plugged in a guy off the street (Brissett) who also managed to play at a respectable level. New England practically ddin't miss a beat with Brady out whereas the Packers going flying off the track and burst into a gigantic fireball when Rodgers goes down.

Is the talent level surrounding Brady that much higher than what GB has right now? Is Bellichick somehow able to prepare his anonymous third string QB (who has since proven to be human, all too human in Indy) better than what McCarthy can do over the course of three training camps? Or has he somehow managed to design a system in which anyone (except possibly Brian Brohm) could succeed whereas McCarthy implements a system that precisely one person on the planet is capable of running? I'm inclined to believe that the talent level surrounding Rodgers must be really low, but then we see guys who were marginal starters in GB (Hayward, Hyde) go on the excel elsewhere. So: low talent level combined with coaching staff that is incapable of recognizing what they have? I am mystified.

I am amazed at how watching most other teams, that there is a scheme in place to get players open in the passing game. I don't see that with MM. I think he has morphed into Rodgers being so good at making that perfect pass or extending plays to where it turns into schoolyard football that he is elite at. When was the last time a WR or TE runs wide open for the Pack on offense? Compare that to how often that occurs against the Pack defense. Watch NO, MN, Philly or any decent offense and multiple times a game you'll see players that are decidedly open for easy gains. With Rodgers enabling MM with his brilliance, MM has ceased scheming as hard as he could be.

[hoosier]

Those are all smart, thoughtful responses to my declaration of mystification. Probably superior to my response, which has the virtue of being quite simple: We Suck.

[mraynrand]

I think perhaps the Packers whole team concept is obviously too dependent on Rodgers much like the Colts with Manning. You know you can put up a lot of points and force other teams to play catch-up or at least try to match your big play offense so you design a defense to minimize big plays and be opportunistic with turn overs. You always finish in the top 5 or so so you essentially don’t have a first round pick every year, so the team at best becomes a collection of pretty good guys. No beasts anywhere. No real game changers except Rodgers. So when he’s out it all goes down.

It’s fine to compare to NE but that’s arguably the best coach and organization in the history of the NFL so it’s not exactly going to give you a balanced prerspective.

[Pugger]

What is MM supposed to do? If you don't have the horses, you don't have the horses. The reality is this team doesn't have a lot of talent. That's what happens when you're good for 25 straight years. You need to draft really well and I would say the Packers have fallen short here. I would not be at all upset to see my guy John Dorsey brought in this off-season to take over for TT.

I don't know if this team is lacking talent. If we had even average QB play yesterday we win that game.

Why is Dorsey still umemployed?

[Pugger]

I am amazed at how watching most other teams, that there is a scheme in place to get players open in the passing game. I don't see that with MM. I think he has morphed into Rodgers being so good at making that perfect pass or extending plays to where it turns into schoolyard football that he is elite at. When was the last time a WR or TE runs wide open for the Pack on offense? Compare that to how often that occurs against the Pack defense. Watch NO, MN, Philly or any decent offense and multiple times a game you'll see players that are decidedly open for easy gains. With Rodgers enabling MM with his brilliance, MM has ceased scheming as hard as he could be.

Go to YouTube and watch highlights of #12. Not all of the time does it turn into schoolyard football. His receivers get open and come back to him when he has to move out of the pocket. Often when AR runs around back there it is because of the pass rush.

[Pugger]

I think perhaps the Packers whole team concept is obviously too dependent on Rodgers much like the Colts with Manning. You know you can put up a lot of points and force other teams to play catch-up or at least try to match your big play offense so you design a defense to minimize big plays and be opportunistic with turn overs. You always finish in the top 5 or so so you essentially don’t have a first round pick every year, so the team at best becomes a collection of pretty good guys. No beasts anywhere. No real game changers except Rodgers. So when he’s out it all goes down.

It’s fine to compare to NE but that’s arguably the best coach and organization in the history of the NFL so it’s not exactly going to give you a balanced prerspective.

Was it is a mortal sin of Ted and Mike to contruct the team around Rodgers' considerable skills like Indy did?

I'm borrowing a post from another forum who says it like I believe but better than I can.

The other thing that needs to stop being said is "you can't build a team/scheme around Aaron Rodgers." Yes you can, and should. The purpose of this roster/scheme should be to maximize Aaron and his gifts when he's on the field. The OL should be built to pass pro over rub block, the WRs and TEs should be tailored to what Aaron wants. Anything and everything to maximize his ability out on the field. When you have a generational talent, you build your roster for him on the field, yes he can be lost to injury like right now, but you're talking one year out of many our offense isn't firing on all cylinders, instead of every year.

[MadScientist]

“Brett Hundley’s our starter. I believe in Brett Hundley,” McCarthy said in his postgame press conference.

McCarthy said that Hundley “will definitely improve from this” and promised that he’d remain the starter against the Steelers next week.

(Can't play much worse)

[denverYooper]

Hey Peter man! Check out channel 9!

[pbmax]

Kenny Clark's XRays were negative, possibly because it was cloudy in Paris. http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/4.html

With or without his ankle, Clark has a chance to play this week.

[denverYooper]

That's a spot of good news. He's one of my favorite young players.

[denverYooper]

[Joemailman]

Kenny Clark's XRays were negative, possibly because it was cloudy in Paris. http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/4.html

With or without his ankle, Clark has a chance to play this week.

I'm sure Doc McKenzie has already cleared him.

[denverYooper]

I'm sure Doc McKenzie has already cleared him.

Old "Rub some dirt on it and get back out there" McKenzie they call him. A real throwback.