Lang calls out Rodgers

[Deleted member 6794]

A lot is going to happen before week 12. The Eagles defense may look like garbage by Thanksgiving. I suspect we'll run into a good defensive team before then.

The Packers play the Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Falcons, Colts, Titans and Redskins before facing the Eagles in week 12. None of those teams possesses a top 10 defense.

 

[Half Empty]

As I predicted, one solid performance by Rodgers and it has silenced the Packer forum critics.

Though I do not expect for this silence to last, it goes to show how reactionary and impressionable most sports fans are. As a side note, Rodgers put together the 4th highest QBR of his career in this game with a 98.3. Let's hope play like this continues.

The negative criticism stops when a player, coach, or team does what we're looking for. If he/they continue like the first 28 minutes of last week, you're not going to hear any complaints from me, and I expect from most of us. The key point is the bold.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I´ve mentioned repeatedly Rodgers´ performance against the Lions shouldn´t result in fans and especially the team feeling confident about the passing game going forward. For that to happen the offense has to perform on a high level against a top defense first.

Well, if receivers run good routes, get separation and the QB has time to throw, as in this last game, they should have good success. Against a clamp down defense, they may struggle to put up points unless benefited by turnovers. That would hardly be a surprise anywhere in the NFL.

A low scoring game against a top defense would require the Packer defense to step up. That's hardly a revelation, nor would it have been over the last several years.

 

[swhitset]

As I´ve mentioned repeatedly Rodgers´ performance against the Lions shouldn´t result in fans and especially the team feeling confident about the passing game going forward. For that to happen the offense has to perform on a high level against a top defense first.

I agree... yes of course people are not specifically criticizing Rodgers after this game... he played a great game. But we need to see more of that before I will be assured that he is back lol.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, if receivers run good routes, get separation and the QB has time to throw, as in this last game, they should have good success. Against a clamp down defense, they may struggle to put up points unless benefited by turnovers. That would hardly be a surprise anywhere in the NFL.

A low scoring game against a top defense would require the Packer defense to step up. That's hardly a revelation, nor would it have been over the last several years.

Well, the Packers have mostly relied on the offense to carry the team since Rodgers became the starter. I would be fine with them winning low scoring games against teams with top defenses but for that to happen the secondary has to significantly improve over the course of the season.

 

[Poppa San]

Well, the Packers have mostly relied on the offense to carry the team since Rodgers became the starter. I would be fine with them winning low scoring games against teams with top defenses but for that to happen the secondary has to significantly improve over the course of the season.

OR at least stop playing like a bunch of rookies and 2nd year players. Oh wait, they are. I've seen a reference somewhere the Packers had 9 1st year players on the field on defense at one time during the game? Or was it a radio talking head?
Let's see: Brice, Price, Lowry, Fackrell, Martinez, Hawkins, Clark, Ringo, Evans. Four linemen; nope don't see it unless they also counted Thomas, Gunter, and / or Ryan as first year players since they played only some of last season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let's see: Brice, Price, Lowry, Fackrell, Martinez, Hawkins, Clark, Ringo, Evans. Four linemen; nope don't see it unless they also counted Thomas, Gunter, and / or Ryan as first year players since they played only some of last season.

Evans didn´t play on defense at all but received 10 snaps on special teams. Therefore a total of seven rookies played on that side of the ball.

 

[Poppa San]

Evans didn´t play on defense at all but received 10 snaps on special teams. Therefore a total of seven rookies played on that side of the ball.

Yeah, I see you addressed this in a different thread. I didn't get back here in time to delete it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, the Packers have mostly relied on the offense to carry the team since Rodgers became the starter.

And that has not worked out so well, even when the offense did put up a sufficient number of points.

I would be fine with them winning low scoring games against teams with top defenses but for that to happen the secondary has to significantly improve over the course of the season.

That's a requirement regardless. You cannot count on outscoring opponents through the playoffs. Getting 4 starters and a rotational guy back on the defense would be a big help in the secondary and in taking pressure off of them.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

First of all Lang is right: Rodgers has what a 65% completion percentage for his career cause he holds onto the ball for 90 seconds. This seems to be greedy to me.

Second of all: Well Chicago Bears I can tell you who your starting right guard will be next year...TJ Lang.

 

[swhitset]

First of all Lang is right: Rodgers has what a 65% completion percentage for his career cause he holds onto the ball for 90 seconds. This seems to be greedy to me.

Second of all: Well Chicago Bears I can tell you who your starting right guard will be next year...TJ Lang.

I wish I could click agree and disagree for this post... lol

disagree to the part about Rodgers being greedy....

There is a strong possibility that Lang will be gone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

First of all Lang is right: Rodgers has what a 65% completion percentage for his career cause he holds onto the ball for 90 seconds. This seems to be greedy to me.

There´s no doubt Rodgers holds on to the ball too long on numerous occasions resulting in a ton of great plays but some terrible as well.

 

[Mondio]

There's always bad to take with the good. Favre was a gunslinger, we all know the good and bad. Rodgers looks for big plays, it has its plusses and minuses. Big road grading offensive linemen usually aren't known for light feet and pass blocking. Athletic and long linemen usually aren't known for run blocking ability. a players coach can have his own problems keeping a team together despite having all the players like him. A disciplinarian can keep a team together or lose one too.

I know Rodgers can get the ball out quicker sometimes, and IMO, it's not something you ignore. Coaches need to keep coaching, and he needs to work on it. But at the same time, I don't hold other people to a standard I can't maintain. I'm not perfect, neither is anyone else. Even though he holds the ball sometimes and it costs us, overall, I don't have a lot to complain about. Coaching needs to happen, and be more selective in taking shots. They all need it. Favre needed it after Sherman was here and pretty much let him do what he wanted. Even though he was capable of being great, it was some of the ugliest QB performances i've seen. They all need to work and they all need coaching to use those strengths, but not let them become big liabilities. You'll never completely remove the liability of those strengths, or you lose the strength too.

 

[PackAttack12]

There's always bad to take with the good. Favre was a gunslinger, we all know the good and bad. Rodgers looks for big plays, it has its plusses and minuses. Big road grading offensive linemen usually aren't known for light feet and pass blocking. Athletic and long linemen usually aren't known for run blocking ability. a players coach can have his own problems keeping a team together despite having all the players like him. A disciplinarian can keep a team together or lose one too.

I know Rodgers can get the ball out quicker sometimes, and IMO, it's not something you ignore. Coaches need to keep coaching, and he needs to work on it. But at the same time, I don't hold other people to a standard I can't maintain. I'm not perfect, neither is anyone else. Even though he holds the ball sometimes and it costs us, overall, I don't have a lot to complain about. Coaching needs to happen, and be more selective in taking shots. They all need it. Favre needed it after Sherman was here and pretty much let him do what he wanted. Even though he was capable of being great, it was some of the ugliest QB performances i've seen. They all need to work and they all need coaching to use those strengths, but not let them become big liabilities. You'll never completely remove the liability of those strengths, or you lose the strength too.

When it comes down to it, I just have the ultimate trust in #12. Maybe to a fault, but it just sickens me that in the past two seasons we've been eliminated from the playoffs in overtime where we didn't get to possess the ball.

I know he and the team could have done more in regulation to avoid that, especially in the Seattle game, but there were some fluky things that happened down the stretch of that game. And even with all of that, Rodgers got us into field goal range to tie the game to actually get it to overtime. Now he could have played a better second half, but there were so many other variables that contributed to blowing that one. If he touches the ball in overtime, he and his team might be sitting here as two time SB champions.

And then in the Arizona game, talk about undermanned. Carried a dude with a hoodie, and two guys he threw verrrry few passes to in the regular season all the way to OT. And I know that there was some luck involved in both of the throws made in regulation on the last drive, but honestly, we shouldn't have even been in a position to win that game against an Arizona team that torched us just a few weeks earlier. I know that the defense stepped up, the O-Line protected better and what have you, but Rodgers made the plays when called upon to win that game. Again, no OT possession.

I just think that this year, assuming reasonable health, I trust Rodgers and this group of guys to make the big plays and get it done. I know that a lot goes into that, who you draw as an opponent, weather conditions, home or away, etc., but if the team can find a way to get one of the top two seeds, and hopefully the 1st overall, which is quite possible given what we have seen so far, and I know that we have to deal with Minnesota, we'll stand a great chance at advancing if the road goes through Lambeau.

Hopefully we have learned from the experiences of the past (losing playoff games at Lambeau, poor clock management, blown coverages, etc) that we will be able to apply to this upcoming postseason.

One game at a time, but I am going to continue to be optimistic.

 

[PackerDNA]

I still can't understand why people think a team that is 3-5 in it's last 8 home games will be so much better off if the playoffs this year are at Lambeau.

 

[OldSchool101]

I admit I don't follow all the guys to the same degree. What does Lang need to improve on?

Refining his public remarks made out of frustration that don't promote backing his platoon. Words hold amazing power and what comes from the tongue is what both defiles and defines us

 

[Half Empty]

Oh. The way it was phrased, I thought the comment was intended to mean he needed to work on his game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I still can't understand why people think a team that is 3-5 in it's last 8 home games will be so much better off if the playoffs this year are at Lambeau.

While the Packers are only 2-2 in the playoffs at Lambeau Field with Rodgers starting at quarterback (4-4 on the road) the team is significantly better at home during the regular season, therefore it's an advantage playing in Green Bay during the postseason. In addition getting a bye in the first round is important as well.

 

[PackAttack12]

I still can't understand why people think a team that is 3-5 in it's last 8 home games will be so much better off if the playoffs this year are at Lambeau.

You care to elaborate on which 8 game stretch you are referring to?

 

[PackerDNA]

Starting with the 1st ever home playoff loss to Atlanta in 02(or 03).
Check that, 4-5; won their last one.

 

[PackAttack12]

Starting with the 1st ever home playoff loss to Atlanta in 02(or 03).
Check that, 4-5; won their last one.

Gotcha. Point remains, being at home gives you a much better shot than winning on the road.

 

[Half Empty]

Not being snarky, but how can you look at a losing home playoff record and deduce that the Pack has a much better chance of winning at home?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not being snarky, but how can you look at a losing home playoff record and deduce that the Pack has a much better chance of winning at home?

I guess that the Packers would have lost every single one of those games on the road as well performing the same way they did at home.

There shouldn't be any doubt that playing at Lambeau is an advantage over having to play away from Green Bay.

 

[Half Empty]

That, subjectively, makes sense - I was going to add that we all want to see HFA. What I was questioning was a post that specifically referenced their 4-5 record at home and concluded that losing record proved it's an advantage - "see we're under .500 at home, so we really want to play there".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That, subjectively, makes sense - I was going to add that we all want to see HFA. What I was questioning was a post that specifically referenced their 4-5 record at home and concluded that losing record proved it's an advantage - "see we're under .500 at home, so we really want to play there".

Well, maybe the Packers 44-7 regular season record at home (32-21 on the road) since the start of the 2009 season with Rodgers playing all game will convince you that it's an advantage for the team.