defending our receivers

[armand34]

I think RR is one of the slowest TE's in the league, it's like the guy is in first gear and can't break a tackle

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think RR is one of the slowest TE's in the league, it's like the guy is in first gear and can't break a tackle

While it was pretty obvious to everyone after the draft that Rodgers wasn't a fast guy it's absolutely disappointing that he can't even break a tackle by defensive backs.

 

[Sky King]

If RR was able to block it would be a huge consolation for his shortcomings. But he might be as bad of a blocker as he is slow as a runner.

 

[C-Lee]

Agreed on all points on Richard, but he does seem to get open and catch balls in the endzone.

Aaron really likes throwing it to him there, too.

 

[Mondio]

I've been pretty disappointed in RR so far this year. I don't care that he's fairly slow, I care that he can't block very well. A slow guy that can block effectively is still very useful all over the field. But part of that is our offensive line can't block for crap either lately. They guy above me got it, he is useful in redzone, because he can chip off, get to a spot and catch it. Those guys can be, and historically have been, great at getting to a spot and catching it in traffic. 1st downs and touchdowns. The Finley's and Gronk's and Graham's are nice, but not necessary to be an effective TE in this league. RR does need to get a bit stronger and get a bit of an attitude and he could be better.

 

[C-Lee]

About the TE situation, I say we put Quarless out there for marching down the field (when he's healthy) and then put RR in redzone situations. Q can actually block, and probably has a bit more speed. Perillo can be in the mix too, I guess.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the more telling story here is "How Does a Top Notch Organization Stumble Due To Losing one Wide Receiver For The Season." I think most of us here are in agreement that the loss of Jordy has had a ripple effect on the offense that nobody saw coming. But we aren't the ones evaluating the talent on the team and making the personnel moves, so how did the Packer organization not see it coming? Over evaluating Adams and Janis and any contribution that Montgomery as a rookie would make is the only thing I can put my finger on. Cobb is a slot receiver, not a #1 guy, so they shouldn't have been looking for him to double his stats to cover the loss of Jordy. Obviously, when Jordy went down, there weren't a lot of options, other then a trade and we all know about trading. As deep as we looked at WR before the preseason started, it has become obvious that the talent dropped off significantly after Nelson and Cobb.

Personally, I saw the signing of Jones as a good thing, but felt that for talent and depth, they needed one more guy. So here we are, 9 weeks in, with what turns out to be an average at best WR corp, making a FHOF QB look average.

It will be interesting to watch how New England does without Julian Edelman, but given the Patriots history, I doubt they skip a beat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/s...o-matter-how-many-players-they-lose.html?_r=0

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Just as an example, the Panthers receiving corps is for sure worse than the Packers one but they make it work somehow.

They make it work because they have Olsen.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They make it work because they have Olsen.

There´s no doubt Olsen is the Panthers most dangerous receiving threat but overall the Packers receiving corps is for sure more talented than Carolina´s.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Other teams actually use schemes to get receivers open (look at how many pick plays the Patriots use) while the Packers are dogmatic in believing the receivers can beat press coverage one-on-one. In the past talent has trumped scheme but this year Rodgers is getting skittish from the pass rush and jumping at shadows, the Packers' best RB is planning a career as a future offensive lineman and the receiving group is missing a top-7 receiver.

 

[Mondio]

Other teams actually use schemes to get receivers open (look at how many pick plays the Patriots use) while the Packers are dogmatic in believing the receivers can beat press coverage one-on-one. In the past talent has trumped scheme but this year Rodgers is getting skittish from the pass rush and jumping at shadows, the Packers' best RB is planning a career as a future offensive lineman and the receiving group is missing a top-7 receiver.

and still I say SO WHAT. was Cobb open or not when he dropped that pass for first down, probably scoring play? yes or yes? Did Adams have a step on his receiver down the sideline and have a ball dropped right in his hands? Yes or yes? Same **** different day. If the line is blocking, rodgers is throwing a bad pass. If he's throwing a perfect pass the receivers are dropping it, if receivers are open, the line is letting 5 guys run free at the quarter back. Until these guys make the plays that are there, you can talk about scheme all you want and it won't matter. If Cobb can't catch that pass in the NFL, he doesn't belong.

How many plays have we seen GB miss because they just didn't make the play, either the line didn't block, the QB didn't deliver the ball or the receiver didn't catch it. talk scheme all you want, until they block throw and catch better, none of it matters. The game was there to be won on numerous, so they call different plays, if you don't catch a wide open pass for 1st downs you're not winning those either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

and still I say SO WHAT. was Cobb open or not when he dropped that pass for first down, probably scoring play? yes or yes? Did Adams have a step on his receiver down the sideline and have a ball dropped right in his hands? Yes or yes? Same **** different day. If the line is blocking, rodgers is throwing a bad pass. If he's throwing a perfect pass the receivers are dropping it, if receivers are open, the line is letting 5 guys run free at the quarter back. Until these guys make the plays that are there, you can talk about scheme all you want and it won't matter. If Cobb can't catch that pass in the NFL, he doesn't belong.

How many plays have we seen GB miss because they just didn't make the play, either the line didn't block, the QB didn't deliver the ball or the receiver didn't catch it. talk scheme all you want, until they block throw and catch better, none of it matters. The game was there to be won on numerous, so they call different plays, if you don't catch a wide open pass for 1st downs you're not winning those either.

The players have been at fault for not making plays on several occasions but there´s absolutely no doubt in my mind that the offensive scheme doesn´t help them out enough to perform up to their abilities either.

 

[PackerDNA]

Mondio, your points are all valid, but I think the points others are making are also good ones.d a
Read something the other day, and while I don't remember the details, the gist was that the Packers run plays out of the same basic formation 76% of the time while the league avg for such a thing is 51%.
That screams too vanilla, too predictable, way too often.

 

[Mondio]

Mondio, your points are all valid, but I think the points others are making are also good ones.d a
Read something the other day, and while I don't remember the details, the gist was that the Packers run plays out of the same basic formation 76% of the time while the league avg for such a thing is 51%.
That screams too vanilla, too predictable, way too often.

yeah for numbers, they don't mean anything. How many times have all the other teams been in the same situation the Packers have been in? How many times have they played without the starting RB? How many times have the #1, #2, #3 and #4 WR's been out, or started a game and left, or any combination above? How many times have they been without their #1-2 TE on the field? How many times have they been in the down and distances we've been in, with the scores being similar and in the same area of the field?

I don't care about stupid stats. none of them help Cobb catch that ball, not a single one. Call any play you want and if he can't catch it and run when he's that open, it doesn't matter at all. There's always a better play. yeah, we play a lot with a RB and a TE, you know why? couldn't possibly have anything to do with the abysmal pass blocking could it? why do you think they trot that formation out so many times? and so what if they line up in it, now break it down into every single play they've run out of it. then compare it to every other team in the league, then compare it to every other team in the league in situational football. Then compare it to how many times it worked, yet the line didn't block, the back didn't pick up a blitz, the receiver didn't catch it, or Rodgers missed the throw or couldnt find the receiver.

I don't care for these arguments because it's you can cherry pick numbers to look how you want and say "see" when it's plain to see, they just aren't making plays. So what if they ran 3wr's a TE and an RB instead of 5 wides. Adams still drops the ball way to often.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

yeah for numbers, they don't mean anything. How many times have all the other teams been in the same situation the Packers have been in? How many times have they played without the starting RB? How many times have the #1, #2, #3 and #4 WR's been out, or started a game and left, or any combination above? How many times have they been without their #1-2 TE on the field? How many times have they been in the down and distances we've been in, with the scores being similar and in the same area of the field?

I don't care about stupid stats. none of them help Cobb catch that ball, not a single one. Call any play you want and if he can't catch it and run when he's that open, it doesn't matter at all. There's always a better play. yeah, we play a lot with a RB and a TE, you know why? couldn't possibly have anything to do with the abysmal pass blocking could it? why do you think they trot that formation out so many times? and so what if they line up in it, now break it down into every single play they've run out of it. then compare it to every other team in the league, then compare it to every other team in the league in situational football. Then compare it to how many times it worked, yet the line didn't block, the back didn't pick up a blitz, the receiver didn't catch it, or Rodgers missed the throw or couldnt find the receiver.

I don't care for these arguments because it's you can cherry pick numbers to look how you want and say "see" when it's plain to see, they just aren't making plays. So what if they ran 3wr's a TE and an RB instead of 5 wides. Adams still drops the ball way to often.

It seems like you don't deal with these losses pretty well, acting like you're the only one having the ultimate solution to the Packers struggles.

While I get you don't like stats the numbers DNA posted were relevant for the discussion about the Packers being predictable, even if you don't like it.

 

[Mondio]

I deal with them just fine. You can change scheme all you want. If Cobb can't catch it, it solves nothing. I'm sorry you like to play with numbers all day and there's no way to massage these numbers to come up with any other solution. You tell me, formation and play call that will make Cobb catch an open play and a well thrown ball. I'm sure you have some stats somewhere.

They aren't relevant in anything other than saying the Packers line up with 3 wides a TE and a RB a lot more than other teams. BFD. It doesn't tell you what play they ran, it doesn't tell you route trees, it doesn't tell you play action, protection calls. it doesn't compare down and distance between all teams. It doesn't account for game situations. it doesn't take into account available personnel to each team, it just gives a rather meaningless percentage because it doesn't account for 100 different variables that are all just as important.

and if you like to crunch all those numbers, then do it. Fact is, run 5 wides, if Cobb doesn't catch an open play on a well thrown ball it doesn't matter. Got a stat to prove me wrong?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

There´s no doubt Olsen is the Panthers most dangerous receiving threat but overall the Packers receiving corps is for sure more talented than Carolina´s.

I'm not sure what talent you are referring to on GB, maybe you could clue Rodgers in as I'm sure he'd love to know. Maybe you're referring to Jordy, Abbrederis, Montgomery, or Janis-I.e. Guys who are either hurt or don't see the field, but actually have the speed to get open. Jones and Adams are very average in terms of size and speed, and Adams can't catch.

At least Fuchess is big enough to cause trouble for a defense, and he sure got behind our secondary, something I've yet to see Adams do. And Ginn actually is a deep threat, and it's not like his hands are any worse than Adams. And a guy like Olsen would do this offense wonders right now.

 

[PFanCan]

No kidding? Well I don't have a twitter account so all I can say is mediocre minds think alike.

Actually, I was kidding. I should have added a smiley. Thought your joke was funny, but then thought that Bostick could probably make the same case as Jordy... (not really)

 

[OldSchool101]

I was certainly impressed with Abby. He's better than I thought at this point for a guy with limited pro experience. Hopefully he doesn't have another concussion after that hit he took against Detroit. He's looking more and more like the type of player that can offer an option for the deep ball and thats exactly part of a formula we need for success.
Montgomery has super hands and a natural athleticism about him. His last play a few weeks ago is proof of this.
I think that getting these 2 back healthy will provide Aaron with another mid and long range option for increased success.
Although Quarless is not a game changer.. He provides a big target that has better YAC ability than Richard Rodgers IMO. I think the combination of these 3 reintroduced into action will give Aaron some viable options and jump start his game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I deal with them just fine. You can change scheme all you want. If Cobb can't catch it, it solves nothing. I'm sorry you like to play with numbers all day and there's no way to massage these numbers to come up with any other solution. You tell me, formation and play call that will make Cobb catch an open play and a well thrown ball. I'm sure you have some stats somewhere.

They aren't relevant in anything other than saying the Packers line up with 3 wides a TE and a RB a lot more than other teams. BFD. It doesn't tell you what play they ran, it doesn't tell you route trees, it doesn't tell you play action, protection calls. it doesn't compare down and distance between all teams. It doesn't account for game situations. it doesn't take into account available personnel to each team, it just gives a rather meaningless percentage because it doesn't account for 100 different variables that are all just as important.

and if you like to crunch all those numbers, then do it. Fact is, run 5 wides, if Cobb doesn't catch an open play on a well thrown ball it doesn't matter. Got a stat to prove me wrong?

So the gist is that all the players are bad and the Packers should just start over? Maybe there's a middle ground, where the coaches actively try and help the players succeed.

 

[Mondio]

So the gist is that all the players are bad and the Packers should just start over? Maybe there's a middle ground, where the coaches actively try and help the players succeed.

yeah, that's what I was getting at. Though I've repeatedly said all these players are obviously capapable of a much higher level of play, their product on the field isn't matching, but yes, I was getting at getting rid of them all and starting over.

What middle ground? Maybe make Cobb be more open than being open? A better pass in Adams hands than perfect? If only the coaches could go out on the field and stop the A gap rush because our pro bowl and highest paid guards in the league can't stop a blitz recently. Everyone wants to blame scheme, well there's at least 10 plays that were as good as you can expect them to be in the NFL and someone miss fired. The normally great QB missed, the WR's missed, or the Oline missed. If those open plays had been made in those crucial times, we win that game easily, but they didn't. Someone in that chain failed each time. Call a different play, if your WR can't catch it, ,what changes? If your offensive line doesn't block it, what changes? If your QB doesn't give the WR a chance, what changes?

Open receivers and QB throws in the dirt. Stupid scheme, should have called a better play. Cobb can't catch, stupid scheme. Adams really can't catch, stupid scheme. Rodgers throws it over their heads, stupid scheme. When you miss an open play with a perfect pass and have to punt, stupid scheme. I think they're just stupid excuses and until they raise their level of play there is nothing else that can be done to "fix" anything.

When Cobb starts catching wide open 3rd down plays with a perfectly thrown ball and we still have to punt 9 freaking times, and Adams starts catching at a rate that's more than a 50-50 proposition, and Rodgers isn't getting hit on every single play and still can't settle in and play like he has, then let's talk about scheme. Until then it's an excuse because you have no idea if the scheme is working or not with everything else that is failing.

or you can continue to think my point is to get rid of everyone because they stink and start over.

 

[longtimefan]

Open receivers and QB throws in the dirt. Stupid scheme, should have called a better play. Cobb can't catch, stupid scheme. Adams really can't catch, stupid scheme. Rodgers throws it over their heads, stupid scheme. When you miss an open play with a perfect pass and have to punt, stupid scheme. I think they're just stupid excuses and until they raise their level of play there is nothing else that can be done to "fix" anything.

When Cobb starts catching wide open 3rd down plays with a perfectly thrown ball and we still have to punt 9 freaking times, and Adams starts catching at a rate that's more than a 50-50 proposition, and Rodgers isn't getting hit on every single play and still can't settle in and play like he has, then let's talk about scheme. Until then it's an excuse because you have no idea if the scheme is working or not with everything else that is failing.

While Mondio's post makes sense to me, others seem not to get the gist..

The play calling cant stop Rodgers from throwing it in the dirt, or stop him from over throwing people.
The play calling cant stop a WR from dropping balls
The play calling cant stop Eddy from fumbling

The play calling CAN make them run the ball more
The play calling CAN run more routes that favor match ups.

In the beginning and wins
Rodgers rating
140
116
138
99
82 ( two int vs Rams)
107 (Chargers)

Playing calling produced 6 wins and the for most part the "normal" we see from Rodgers


Losses and Rodgers rating
69
86
93
Now the play calling sucks?

That is hard for me to wrap m head around that the play calling is the ONLY issue..No one wants to mention Rodgers is not playing to his normal ability

If you want to say he isnt happy with Clements- okay....That can happen, but as a PRO he should still be able to throw the ball 10 yards in the flat and have it go to the hands and not the dirt

 

[Mondio]

If you want to say he isnt happy with Clements- okay....That can happen, but as a PRO he should still be able to throw the ball 10 yards in the flat and have it go to the hands and not the dirt

This is the part that worries me, not just Rodgers, but the entire team. When they start believing the reasons they're loosing are for external reasons and lose faith in the coaching, the season is lost if they don't get it back quickly. From all past reports Clements and Rodgers worked together very well, but that's not to say they always have or always will. But outside of that if the RB's don't believe, they look for excuses rather than playing better. If the Oline doesn't believe, then they make excuses and don't play better.

I had some comfort in seeing Sitton followed up his comment with, a comment like, we need to play better, it starts there. When i saw all the headlines about sitton saying it was the predictable play calling, a lost season shot thru my mind.

 

[gopkrs]

I still believe we have to pass in order to run. There just aren't any good holes to run through and we cannot expect Starks to run around the called play to get a big gain. Pass pass pass until we are able to move the ball and then throw in some runs. But even then...only for a mix up. Don't expect running to help much unless we are playing a team with a lousy D line. I would try the rookie fullback for pass pro. He can't do any worse.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I deal with them just fine. You can change scheme all you want. If Cobb can't catch it, it solves nothing. I'm sorry you like to play with numbers all day and there's no way to massage these numbers to come up with any other solution. You tell me, formation and play call that will make Cobb catch an open play and a well thrown ball. I'm sure you have some stats somewhere.

They aren't relevant in anything other than saying the Packers line up with 3 wides a TE and a RB a lot more than other teams. BFD. It doesn't tell you what play they ran, it doesn't tell you route trees, it doesn't tell you play action, protection calls. it doesn't compare down and distance between all teams. It doesn't account for game situations. it doesn't take into account available personnel to each team, it just gives a rather meaningless percentage because it doesn't account for 100 different variables that are all just as important.

and if you like to crunch all those numbers, then do it. Fact is, run 5 wides, if Cobb doesn't catch an open play on a well thrown ball it doesn't matter. Got a stat to prove me wrong?

You´re picking some random plays to prove your point while ignoring the overall picture. Yeah, the players made several mistakes against the Lions but for the most part of this season the receivers have had trouble getting open and the coaching staff hasn´t come up with a scheme with more man beater routes to create separation. There´s no denying the offensive line has struggled but there are ways for the coaches to help them out as well with additional blockers.

While the players don´t play up to their potential it´s pretty obvious the offensive game plan isn´t close to perfect either.

I'm not sure what talent you are referring to on GB, maybe you could clue Rodgers in as I'm sure he'd love to know. Maybe you're referring to Jordy, Abbrederis, Montgomery, or Janis-I.e. Guys who are either hurt or don't see the field, but actually have the speed to get open. Jones and Adams are very average in terms of size and speed, and Adams can't catch.

At least Fuchess is big enough to cause trouble for a defense, and he sure got behind our secondary, something I've yet to see Adams do. And Ginn actually is a deep threat, and it's not like his hands are any worse than Adams. And a guy like Olsen would do this offense wonders right now.

Cobb, Adams and Jones are for sure more talented than any of the Panthers receivers.

I still believe we have to pass in order to run. There just aren't any good holes to run through and we cannot expect Starks to run around the called play to get a big gain. Pass pass pass until we are able to move the ball and then throw in some runs. But even then...only for a mix up. Don't expect running to help much unless we are playing a team with a lousy D line. I would try the rookie fullback for pass pro. He can't do any worse.

Teams have to run the ball effectively to slow down the opponent´s pass rush.