Resolved: The Problem With The Packer Offense Is

[run pMc]

If Adams catches it clean. That was the triple bobble catch.

Adams bobbled a couple of catches, which seemed weird to me. Kudos to him for having a pretty big game on a sore calf.

[gbgary]

unless someone is wide open deep why go to him if it's not necessary? go quick, short. move the chains. eat up the clock. give our d a break.

[pbmax]

unless someone is wide open deep why go to him if it's not necessary? go quick, short. move the chains. eat up the clock. give our d a break.

When its working going deep basically delivers more points. Also keeps the defense honest.

The problem is its become the default and they refuse to take what is given freely. Then, in second and third and long, the defense pushes forward, necessitating throws behind the LOS.

[Carolina_Packer]

Who doesn't want to score more points? It would be awesome to have the same proficiency on offense as 2011 and 2014, but that's not where the offense is currently. One of the current big issues on offense is the slow starts in multiple games. If they would take the singles hitter approach to start the games and not the Earl Weaver "what problem is not solved with a 3 run homer approach", they could be more diverse, make drives last longer instead of the risk of being feast or famine, and if you control the clock on offense, the defense benefits. That may not be as sexy, but it's winning football. Can/will MM and ARod take that approach?

[pbmax]

Who doesn't want to score more points? It would be awesome to have the same proficiency on offense as 2011 and 2014, but that's not where the offense is currently. One of the current big issues on offense is the slow starts in multiple games. If they would take the singles hitter approach to start the games and not the Earl Weaver "what problem is not solved with a 3 run homer approach", they could be more diverse, make drives last longer instead of the risk of being feast or famine, and if you control the clock on offense, the defense benefits. That may not be as sexy, but it's winning football. Can/will MM and ARod take that approach?

I think this is basically the story of the offense since 2012. The no huddle gave some life to it in 2013/14* but the basic features of the offensive battle are laid out here.

The defenses they faced decided Jones and Nelson were too dangerous to leave to one on one very often and adjusted. The Packers adopted the no huddle, but the basic approach hasn't changed except for very short behind the LOS patterns.

There has been a consistent refusal (except for injuries) to rein in touchdown to check down and the long passing game and take, by design, what defenses are giving you underneath. And no one has changed the approach now that the receiver corp is less frightening deep.

The very worrisome part is now McCarthy seems to be buying into it (somewhat) but Rodgers, as he gets healthier, does not.


*Should be noted for comparison sake, the great offensive slowdown era produced a QB MVP in 2014. So this is all relative. Packers still not the Titans or Texans.

Doesn't apply to dominant era Seattle D (just played single high and dared you to wait to throw it deep) or Zimmer defenses. Should also note that since the heyday of the Legion of Boom, the Packers have regularly dismantled Pete Carrol's defense.

[Rutnstrut]

unless someone is wide open deep why go to him if it's not necessary? go quick, short. move the chains. eat up the clock. give our d a break.

You mean play Patriot football? That's not how stubby and AR want to win.

[mraynrand]

the Earl Weaver "what problem is not solved with a 3 run homer approach"

That was awesome.

[pbmax]

That was awesome.

That approach is back in vogue.

#LaunchAngle!

[mraynrand]

That approach is back in vogue.

#LaunchAngle!

Ya, I suppose. I don't follow baseball all that much. But I did enjoy the flashback to the 70's/80's, thinking about the Oriols of '79 - '83. Didn't Weaver lose the WS in '79 then have a stroke or something in '83. He had to almost die or something for them to win again?? (Didn't look it up).

[pbmax]

Ya, I suppose. I don't follow baseball all that much. But I did enjoy the flashback to the 70's/80's, thinking about the Oriols of '79 - '83. Didn't Weaver lose the WS in '79 then have a stroke or something in '83. He had to almost die or something for them to win again?? (Didn't look it up).

Don't remember anything about his health, but I know he and Palmer had to patch things up to be in a booth together, so maybe something like that spurred them on.

I just remember thinking it was weird that Earl Weaver, who was a terror to watch and play against, became this warm and fuzzy guy in the booth. He looked like a maniac on the field. Kicking dirt onto umpires and throwing bases.