Aaron Rodgers watch.

[PackerDNA]

The Giants are more of a test than the Cowboys.

More so now, since Dez Bryant will miss the next 3 weeks.

 

[XPack]

It's going to take more than one game for him to earn everybody's trust.

Well, he's never lost mine

 

[Poppa San]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/9/28/13096956/aaron-rodgers-2016-nfl-mvp-award-odds-favorite-to-win

ARod stock is rising.

Right between A-Rod and the field, if I were a bettor, I'd put my money on the field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Are you referring to my post or to the article? Because I am in no way implying that he is the front runner. Notice how my post is contingent on what could happen based on a projection that I am saying is possible.

Like I said, you could be referring to the article and not my post, but since my post was quoted, notice that I used words like "if", "I think", "could take advantage of", "it's quite possible", and "discussion for top 3". And to your point about the 213 yard passing high, I specifically said that he would need 320+ yard passing games.

None of those seem to imply that I am putting him as my MVP front runner.

I was referring to the article.

 

[P-E-Z]

The Giants are more of a test than the Cowboys.

Agree the Giants are more of a test and we know more about them after they play the Vikings. They only lost last week because huge number of boneheaded penalities personal fouls at worst time.

 

[Packerlifer]

Aaron Rodgers' first 3 games of his MVP season in 2014 compared to now:

2014: At Seattle (Packers lost 16-36). Rodgers 23 of 33, 189 yds., 1 td, 1 int., 3 sacks, rating 81.5.
NY Jets (Packers won 31-24) Rodgers 25 of 42, 346 yds., 3 td's, 0 int's 4 sacks, rating 109.8.
At Detroit (Packers lost 7-19). Rodgers 16 of 27, 162 yds, 1 td, 0 int., 2 sacks, rating 88,8.

2016: At Jacksonville (Packers won 27-23). Rodgers 20 of 34, 199 yds., 2 td's, 0 int., 2 sacks, rating 95.1
At Minnesota (Packers lost 14-17). Rodgers 20 of 36, 213 yds., 1 td, 1 int., 5 sacks, rating 70.7
Detroit (Packers won 34-27). Rodgers 15 of 24, 205 yds., 4 td's, 0 int's., 2 sacks, rating 129.3

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The Giants are more of a test than the Cowboys.

You think the Giants are better running the ball than the Cowboys?

Well, we'll see.

 

[C-Lee]

You think the Giants are better running the ball than the Cowboys?

Well, we'll see.

Whoops, I meant that I think the Giants are a better team overall than the Cowboys. Zeke and that O-Line in Dallas will be a good test for this run defense though, you are correct.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Whoops, I meant that I think the Giants are a better team overall than the Cowboys. Zeke and that O-Line in Dallas will be a good test for this run defense though, you are correct.

The concern against the Giants, I imagine, will be their three talented receivers versus Green Bay's young secondary. It does present an opportunity, however, for Randall & Company to redeem themselves after a less-than-stellar outing against Detroit......

 

[Pkrjones]

Saw perfect example of how to negate Odell last night... play him very physically AND double with a safety. Once mentally "taken out" of the game he started dropping passes that he normally would hang onto.

Eli certainly was gun-shy about getting rocked ~ he threw 3 or 4 into the ground after the pocket starting collapsing on him. Pressure up the middle puts Eli into panic mode, so I'd move CM3 (?? playing?) inside blitzing a couple of times early.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Saw perfect example of how to negate Odell last night... play him very physically AND double with a safety. Once mentally "taken out" of the game he started dropping passes that he normally would hang onto.

Eli certainly was gun-shy about getting rocked ~ he threw 3 or 4 into the ground after the pocket starting collapsing on him. Pressure up the middle puts Eli into panic mode, so I'd move CM3 (?? playing?) inside blitzing a couple of times early.

I imagine after what happened last night, the Giants are likely to emphasize short, quick throws to get the ball out of Eli's hands as fast as possible. It is then up to the secondary to sit on those short routes and take them away. That could present a challenge.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I imagine after what happened last night, the Giants are likely to emphasize short, quick throws to get the ball out of Eli's hands as fast as possible. It is then up to the secondary to sit on those short routes and take them away. That could present a challenge.

I'm much more concerned about the Giants deep passing game than defending short routes.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm much more concerned about the Giants deep passing game than defending short routes.

I'm in the same camp, or the short routes that turn into big gains. Manning last night looked rattled, the Packers front 7 is going to have to do the same as what the Vikings did and not let Manning get comfortable in the pocket.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'm much more concerned about the Giants deep passing game than defending short routes.

That depends - deep routes take time. If Green Bay can pressure Eli, there won't be any time. If they can't, different story.

 

[El Guapo]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sky King]

The short crossing routes over the middle have been the Packers Kryptonite. If the Giants enjoy early success going long it may only make it tougher to stop those crossing routes over the short middle. Eli does not need much time to complete those routes.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The short crossing routes over the middle have been the Packers Kryptonite. If the Giants enjoy early success going long it may only make it tougher to stop those crossing routes over the short middle. Eli does not need much time to complete those routes.

Yes, the middle of the field has for the most part been wide open against Green Bay's defense this season. I think back to the Jacksonville game - the only time Green Bay got a stop on 4th down was when the Jaguars outsmarted themselves with a quick out to the side. Likely the difference between winning and losing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The short crossing routes over the middle have been the Packers Kryptonite.

This has been my observation as well. 5-15 yards middle of the field seems to be wide open more time then not against the Packers defense. To compound the frustration of seeing that continually haunt our defense, it seems like an area of the field that our offense doesn't take advantage of nearly enough. While I like Jordy and Adams on sideline routes, they seem to be hit or miss routes and even if completed, very few yards after the catch. Now with Cook injured, we have one less weapon to use in the middle of the field, but between Cobb, Abby, Monty, RRodgers and Perillo, the Packers need to start doing what other teams successfully use against us and make teams pay if they leave that area of the field open.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Offenses will continue to have success against the Packers so long as the team is missing a starting safety, the team's best linebacker and the team's best corner AND a starting NT. Nobody would be scared of the Broncos if you took Miller, Talib, TJ Ward and Sylvester Williams off their defense. Yes, those are all better players than the Packers have but the point is that people would expect the Broncos D to be worse with those guys out and yet fans seem to think the Packers shouldn't miss a beat with the same injuries...

As for Rodgers, I don't think he's the first QB in NFL history to go from best-in-the-NFL to mediocre without an injury that caused the decline or no dramatic decline in skill of teammates. I think Rodgers has gotten into bad habits because he's being forced to do more on an offense that isn't helping him or his receivers get open. The offense was great when the Packers had a top-7 WR in Nelson and a top-20 WR in Cobb and a very good (and in shape) Eddie Lacy at RB. I don't actually think it takes much of an offensive system to create a great offense with those players. However, now that the team is suffering from declines in some of those players, they need more help and Rodgers is being forced to do more to compensate. He's trying too hard to compensate and that's leading to issues.

 

[OldSchool101]

Offenses will continue to have success against the Packers so long as the team is missing a starting safety, the team's best linebacker and the team's best corner AND a starting NT. Nobody would be scared of the Broncos if you took Miller, Talib, TJ Ward and Sylvester Williams off their defense. Yes, those are all better players than the Packers have but the point is that people would expect the Broncos D to be worse with those guys out and yet fans seem to think the Packers shouldn't miss a beat with the same injuries...

As for Rodgers, I don't think he's the first QB in NFL history to go from best-in-the-NFL to mediocre without an injury that caused the decline or no dramatic decline in skill of teammates. I think Rodgers has gotten into bad habits because he's being forced to do more on an offense that isn't helping him or his receivers get open. The offense was great when the Packers had a top-7 WR in Nelson and a top-20 WR in Cobb and a very good (and in shape) Eddie Lacy at RB. I don't actually think it takes much of an offensive system to create a great offense with those players. However, now that the team is suffering from declines in some of those players, they need more help and Rodgers is being forced to do more to compensate. He's trying too hard to compensate and that's leading to issues.

I very much agree. IMO, if we get 2 of those 4-5 injured Defensive starters back without succumbing to further injuries we'll see a marked improvement. I also believe our past success in the backfield was directly related to QB pocket pressure. When we get hits on a QB early
it inhibits our opponents aerial attack. There are few exceptions.. I commend Sam Bradford for not allowing our D pressure to diminish his focus at the MN home opener. His degree of accuracy on some of those throws was impressive even after injury.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Offenses will continue to have success against the Packers so long as the team is missing a starting safety, the team's best linebacker and the team's best corner AND a starting NT. Nobody would be scared of the Broncos if you took Miller, Talib, TJ Ward and Sylvester Williams off their defense. Yes, those are all better players than the Packers have but the point is that people would expect the Broncos D to be worse with those guys out and yet fans seem to think the Packers shouldn't miss a beat with the same injuries...

Totally agree with most of your Rodgers assessment.

While I will agree with part of your assessment of the impact of injuries on our defense, it can't be an excuse every time the defense folds like a cheap tent. The defense and more specifically, the secondary seemed fine in the first 26 minutes of the Lions game. The same personnel played the second half (Martinez was in and out) and they played awful. What was the difference?

Ask other teams, Vikings being one, how injuries have effected their team. Injuries are an expected part of the game and Capers and his defensive staff should have the next man up mentality. Randall is considered a starter, not a back-up and he looked like a back-up for much of the last 2 games. The secondary getting scorched with starters isn't a new phenomenon, but one that needs to stop in order for the Packers to compete at a higher level. I think its why the Packers have invested so much in the defense, especially the secondary the past few drafts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The short crossing routes over the middle have been the Packers Kryptonite.

I attribute this to Capers playing a lot of soft zone on passing downs. Neither safety is on the screen and the ILBs are taking deep drops. Can't say I care for it much.

He also dropped Perry a couple of times in zone blitz in the second half against Detroit, once with both Perry and Peppers dropping, looking for a cheap pick. Those plays looked a little confused and went for intermediate yards.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Offenses will continue to have success against the Packers so long as the team is missing a starting safety, the team's best linebacker and the team's best corner AND a starting NT. Nobody would be scared of the Broncos if you took Miller, Talib, TJ Ward and Sylvester Williams off their defense. Yes, those are all better players than the Packers have but the point is that people would expect the Broncos D to be worse with those guys out and yet fans seem to think the Packers shouldn't miss a beat with the same injuries...

In my opinion it's absolutely lame to blame injuries for the secondary struggling mightily.

 

[XPack]

In my opinion it's absolutely lame to blame injuries for the secondary struggling mightily.

I'd just put it to bad management. Randall has just been thrown off the deep end and blaming him just hides the fact that MM/TT are poor in transitioning between teams. Picking good in drafts is just crossing half the bridge, if they can't ease them in gradually without running the dynamics totally.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Totally agree with most of your Rodgers assessment.

While I will agree with part of your assessment of the impact of injuries on our defense, it can't be an excuse every time the defense folds like a cheap tent. The defense and more specifically, the secondary seemed fine in the first 26 minutes of the Lions game. The same personnel played the second half (Martinez was in and out) and they played awful. What was the difference?

Ask other teams, Vikings being one, how injuries have effected their team. Injuries are an expected part of the game and Capers and his defensive staff should have the next man up mentality. Randall is considered a starter, not a back-up and he looked like a back-up for much of the last 2 games. The secondary getting scorched with starters isn't a new phenomenon, but one that needs to stop in order for the Packers to compete at a higher level. I think its why the Packers have invested so much in the defense, especially the secondary the past few drafts.

Why can't it be an excuse when the defense folds? If players are out of the game it's not like they can be effective sometimes, they're just OUT. With the number of players out you can't just focus on the backups being worse, you also have to remember that it severely limits what Capers can do scheme-wise as well. He can't make adjustments he might want to make because he doesn't have any players to make those adjustments with.

You bring up the Vikings but their injuries have to been to guys on the defense that aren't that important and not nearly as many. If the Packers defense was missing Datone Jones and the others were all healthy then I think the defense would be playing much better.