OFFICIAL Mike McCarthy Took Back Play callin

[longtimefan]

The offense has struggled for five games. Just because the Packers won three of them doesn't mean everything was working.

.I did say 6 but in another post I said 5..

so I will be more accurate from now and say 4.5 just to be precise


31--worked--Bears
27--worked--Seattle
38--worked--KC
17--sucked--Niners
17--sucked--Rams--took 7 away for D Td
27--worked--Chargers--Def was worse
10--sucked--Denver
29-- half sucked--Panthers


That is how I viewed it..Just because they they dont score 14 points every q doesnt mean they had issues..

If you dont agree, then thats fine.But it is my opinion

What is odd is they do score or did score in 1st q a lot. Then it tapers off. So maybe their scripted plays are more thought out and adjustments arent being made fast enough

 

[Deleted member 6794]

.I did say 6 but in another post I said 5..

so I will be more accurate from now and say 4.5 just to be precise


31--worked--Bears
27--worked--Seattle
38--worked--KC
17--sucked--Niners
17--sucked--Rams--took 7 away for D Td
27--worked--Chargers--Def was worse
10--sucked--Denver
29-- half sucked--Panthers


That is how I viewed it..Just because they they dont score 14 points every q doesnt mean they had issues..

If you dont agree, then thats fine.But it is my opinion

What is odd is they do score or did score in 1st q a lot. Then it tapers off. So maybe their scripted plays are more thought out and adjustments arent being made fast enough

The offense had a good first quarter vs. the Chargers but struggled the rest of the game. I really don't consider scoring points against the Panthers prevent defense as success.

 

[JBlood]

Vince Lombardi wouldn't win with a bunch of guys that don't block or tackle. We have an offensive line that is offensive at present. It needs to get "cleaned up" as MM loves to say. The defense is apparently so complicated that nobody knows what the h3ll is going on out there. I'm beginning a novena to St. Vince. It can't hurt.

 

[828Packer]

let's get this clear, nobody is stacking the box. I saw one play yesterday where there were 8 in the box, and we went in a run formation with 2 FB's and did a bootleg to Ripkowski for a nice gain. Other than that, most of the game was 6, sometimes 7 in the box. That's NOT stacked. It's light or base.

Let's get another thing clear: Placing 6 guys in run support against any GB team, I consider stacking the box. Bringing 5 or even 6 on a pass rush, I consider stacking in the box against GB. Stay in denial if you like and place whatever 'base' or 'light' labels you'd like. We are not pressing defenses like we should because they frankly don't respect our big play ability right now. I have never seen GB receivers being pressed at the LOS as much as I have the last 2 weeks. I have never seen as many blitz packages against Rodgers as I have this year. Every single bit of it is because of our inability to stretch the field.

Give us the NFC pro-bowl OL and we would see the same.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I don't agree with the original post that Clements has to be replaced as the play caller it's true that it takes the Packers too much time to get plays off. Before this week they were ranked only 30th in the league with an average of 29.67 to snap the ball.

 

[Poppa San]

While I don't agree with the original post that Clements has to be replaced as the play caller it's true that it takes the Packers too much time to get plays off. Before this week they were ranked only 30th in the league with an average of 29.67 to snap the ball.

I will toss out that this stat also includes the 6 games we had a lead and were trying to burn clock.
MM talks about more plays, trying to get 70 or so. This could be one reason why they don't. How many plays/ game do the Eagles get? What is their avg snap time?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I will toss out that this stat also includes the 6 games we had a lead and were trying to burn clock.
MM talks about more plays, trying to get 70 or so. This could be one reason why they don't. How many plays/ game do the Eagles get? What is their avg snap time?

While the sample size is pretty small (the stats are from before this week) it took the Packers an average of 34.27 seconds to snap the ball while trailing by 7+ points, which is more than four seconds longer than any other team.

It takes the Eagles an average of 22.81 seconds to snap the ball, fastest in the league.

 

[DMANDTM]

what good is a guy that can stretch the field going to do when we can't protect Rodgers long enough to complete a 5 yard route? Everything starts with this offensive line and to date they've been very much below average across it. From tackle to tackle and everyone in between. Get your offensive line working adequately and will be fine.

I agree. Rodgers seems to be under pressure almost immediately. Even though he often has the ball for almost 3 seconds before the throw, his attention is spent on dodging rushers. He has had way more passes off the mark then I've ever seen for him lately, as he is taking or dodging a hit while he is throwing.

 

[Mondio]

Let's get another thing clear: Placing 6 guys in run support against any GB team, I consider stacking the box. Bringing 5 or even 6 on a pass rush, I consider stacking in the box against GB. Stay in denial if you like and place whatever 'base' or 'light' labels you'd like. We are not pressing defenses like we should because they frankly don't respect our big play ability right now. I have never seen GB receivers being pressed at the LOS as much as I have the last 2 weeks. I have never seen as many blitz packages against Rodgers as I have this year. Every single bit of it is because of our inability to stretch the field.

Give us the NFC pro-bowl OL and we would see the same.

They aren't "my" labels. It's a base defense. 3 DL 4 LB, base 3-5. 4 DL 3 LB's, base 4-3. 5DL, 2 LB's a base 5-2, Take a DL or LB out and put in a DB and now you have 6 in the box and that's called a nickel defense, one built around stopping the pass which is the exact opposite of "stacking the box to stop the run" as you put it.

We're not pressing defenses because nobody along the line can stop anybody from hitting our quarter back. Rodgers can't even get to his drop point before he has to avoid the rush or get hammered. he spends more times looking for defenders to avoid than he can looking for open receivers and you think the solution is to call for more deep passing plays? They aren't doing much better opening running lanes either. If you can't run and you can't protect the quarterback, you can call any play you want and your chances of success are not good.

But hey, what do I know, apparently i'm in some sort of denial

 

[828Packer]

They aren't "my" labels. It's a base defense. 3 DL 4 LB, base 3-5. 4 DL 3 LB's, base 4-3. 5DL, 2 LB's a base 5-2, Take a DL or LB out and put in a DB and now you have 6 in the box and that's called a nickel defense, one built around stopping the pass which is the exact opposite of "stacking the box to stop the run" as you put it.

We're not pressing defenses because nobody along the line can stop anybody from hitting our quarter back. Rodgers can't even get to his drop point before he has to avoid the rush or get hammered. he spends more times looking for defenders to avoid than he can looking for open receivers and you think the solution is to call for more deep passing plays? They aren't doing much better opening running lanes either. If you can't run and you can't protect the quarterback, you can call any play you want and your chances of success are not good.

But hey, what do I know, apparently i'm in some sort of denial

My entire argument has gone over your head.

I have played A LOT of football and coached A LOT of football. I understand what base D's are however I wasn't discussing schematic bases more than I was discussing philosophy, approach and planning. I don't care what base D we are seeing, playing in the box is a relative term. Committing 6 or 7 guys to the box against GB could be considered loading the box when comparing it to previous years. A base 3-5 can drop an LB and RAM in coverage and only have 5 guys committed to the box, post snap. Most teams in the last few years have not committed many guys in the box or in pass rush against us. This year is different. You can chalk it up to the OL however this is the EXACT same OL that Rodgers won an MVP with last year.

No, the solution is not to call deep plays. I have never said that. The solution is to find a serviceable deep threat that can keep defenses honest. Carolina plays a cover 5 and blitzed Kurt Coleman A LOT. When was the last time you saw a team get pressure with their secondary and LB's against a GB passing attack, as much as they have the last 2 weeks? They do not respect us over the top, PLAIN AND SIMPLE...... and when they don't respect us downfield, they can take a lot more chances within 10 yards of the LOS. They can stunt more, they can blitz more, they can bring secondary blitzes more, and THEY ARE. Jordy usually required a corner and a safety over the top in coverage, nearly every play. Richard Rodgers and Cobb playing underneath Jordy, could usually neutralize 2 LB's or another safety and LB thus giving the OL an ideal situation which resulted in ample time for Rodgers. Without Jordy, decent defenses are much more apt to play man to man, and commit more pressure to Rodgers. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time seeing that.

 

[JP Doyal]

My entire argument has gone over your head.

I have played A LOT of football and coached A LOT of football. I understand what base D's are however I wasn't discussing schematic bases more than I was discussing philosophy, approach and planning. I don't care what base D we are seeing, playing in the box is a relative term. Committing 6 or 7 guys to the box against GB could be considered loading the box when comparing it to previous years. A base 3-5 can drop an LB and RAM in coverage and only have 5 guys committed to the box, post snap. Most teams in the last few years have not committed many guys in the box or in pass rush against us. This year is different. You can chalk it up to the OL however this is the EXACT same OL that Rodgers won an MVP with last year.

No, the solution is not to call deep plays. I have never said that. The solution is to find a serviceable deep threat that can keep defenses honest. Carolina plays a cover 5 and blitzed Kurt Coleman A LOT. When was the last time you saw a team get pressure with their secondary and LB's against a GB passing attack, as much as they have the last 2 weeks? They do not respect us over the top, PLAIN AND SIMPLE...... and when they don't respect us downfield, they can take a lot more chances within 10 yards of the LOS. They can stunt more, they can blitz more, they can bring secondary blitzes more, and THEY ARE. Jordy usually required a corner and a safety over the top in coverage, nearly every play. Richard Rodgers and Cobb playing underneath Jordy, could usually neutralize 2 LB's or another safety and LB thus giving the OL an ideal situation which resulted in ample time for Rodgers. Without Jordy, decent defenses are much more apt to play man to man, and commit more pressure to Rodgers. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time seeing that.

I see what you are saying. Makes a lot of sense and honestly never thought of it like that. I was just chalking it up to the line. So I guess we do miss Jordy more than we thought we did. But what WR do we have do you think that can be a deep threat? Randall thrives at the Slot....when there is a deep threat. So, is JJ or Davante or somebody else you think that can be a decent replacement for Jordy?

 

[Mondio]

My entire argument has gone over your head.

I have played A LOT of football and coached A LOT of football. I understand what base D's are however I wasn't discussing schematic bases more than I was discussing philosophy, approach and planning. I don't care what base D we are seeing, playing in the box is a relative term. Committing 6 or 7 guys to the box against GB could be considered loading the box when comparing it to previous years. A base 3-5 can drop an LB and RAM in coverage and only have 5 guys committed to the box, post snap. Most teams in the last few years have not committed many guys in the box or in pass rush against us. This year is different. You can chalk it up to the OL however this is the EXACT same OL that Rodgers won an MVP with last year.

No, the solution is not to call deep plays. I have never said that. The solution is to find a serviceable deep threat that can keep defenses honest. Carolina plays a cover 5 and blitzed Kurt Coleman A LOT. When was the last time you saw a team get pressure with their secondary and LB's against a GB passing attack, as much as they have the last 2 weeks? They do not respect us over the top, PLAIN AND SIMPLE...... and when they don't respect us downfield, they can take a lot more chances within 10 yards of the LOS. They can stunt more, they can blitz more, they can bring secondary blitzes more, and THEY ARE. Jordy usually required a corner and a safety over the top in coverage, nearly every play. Richard Rodgers and Cobb playing underneath Jordy, could usually neutralize 2 LB's or another safety and LB thus giving the OL an ideal situation which resulted in ample time for Rodgers. Without Jordy, decent defenses are much more apt to play man to man, and commit more pressure to Rodgers. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time seeing that.

no, it hasn't gone over my head. If you've played a lot and coached a lot, then you surely know that 6 guys in the box is just inviting the run, the exact opposite of stacking. 6 guys is 6 guys. it's not 8, it's 6 if you can't run on it, you can't pass on it either. Not sure why you can't understand. 6 guys in the box screams run, run, run. But when you can't run block and can't pass block nothing is going to work. Until this offensive line starts playing better, nothing will change. Why would a team respect a deep threat because he's on the field when they can rush with 4 and kill the qb? Good for the deep threat, you'll never be open because the play won't last that long. It's too bad we can't convince all NFL defenses to play with 2 Dlineman and a linebacker. Then we should be able to run LOL that's enough of these 6 man stacked boxes, 2 less guys than any other team uses

 

[PackerDNA]

I think that Mondio and 828Packer both have excellent points.
To me, what they boil down to as that we do not have the available personnel to address the issue well enough .

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To me, what they boil down to as that we do not have the available personnel to address the issue well enough .

I think the Packers have the talent on offense to be elite. Unfortunately that's not true on defense.

 

[Mondio]

I think that Mondio and 828Packer both have excellent points.
To me, what they boil down to as that we do not have the available personnel to address the issue well enough .

Last year if they blitzed a LB or a DB, or came up the A gaps, the line held many more times than not. This year they're letting them thru like a turnstile. It's the same people coming from the same positions. It's not as if they get extra people this year on defense and a linebacker coming up the middle is a linebacker coming up the middle, you either stop them long enough for Rodgers to hit someone in the vacated part of the field or you don't. This year, they aren't. I don't know why, but if you can't run on 6 guys or block 4-5 long enough for Rodgers to get back, set up and make some reads, our offense is going to go nowhere.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think the Packers have the talent on offense to be elite. Unfortunately that's not true on defense.

I don't know that they have the talent to consistently bring back the deep threat. The loss of Nelson isn't just about losing him , it's the trickle down effect on the rest of the unit. Guys are being asked to do things, and more of them , that aren't in their wheelhouse.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't know that they have the talent to consistently bring back the deep threat. The loss of Nelson isn't just about losing him , it's the trickle down effect on the rest of the unit. Guys are being asked to do things, and more of them , that aren't in their wheelhouse.

There's no doubt the offense has to make it work differently without Nelson but the unit still has enough talent to be one of the best in the league.

 

[PackerDNA]

There's no doubt the offense has to make it work differently without Nelson but the unit still has enough talent to be one of the best in the league.

I'm not convinced that they do, Captain.
Cobb is a great talent, but needs to be used a certain way; out of the backfield, gimmicky type plays. He excels at 'sandlot' ball when plays breakdown, but expecting him to be a true across the board #1?
Adams disappears too much; he's often cited for poor route running. Sure he has potential, but I don't see him as elie, and a lot of the hopes pinned on him come from flashes here and there and 2 big games last year.
Montgomery is a rookie who as I've stated in the past, I think the team is still figuring out what he does best and how to best use him.
Janis and Abby? Still relative unknowns who, despite all the issues with the passing game , have trouble getting on the field.
And the TE's offer next to no impact in the passing game.
Nothing can really be done at this point of the season, but irregardless of how well Nelson comes back next year, I'd like to see more size and speed added to the position next year. By any means available.

 

[828Packer]

no, it hasn't gone over my head. If you've played a lot and coached a lot, then you surely know that 6 guys in the box is just inviting the run, the exact opposite of stacking.

You would be correct if we were a power running team. We are not. We have a power back, but we are not power running team. Our OL is predicated around Aaron Rodgers and the passing game. They are better at building walls in front of Aaron Rodgers than they are opening holes to run through. That is just the nature of our offense. Hell, one of the main reasons we drafted Lacy is for his size and ability to gain yards after contact because we knew our OL would never be elite in man blocking. As a matter of fact, we have pulled teeth trying to incorporate more man blocking and less zone blocking, with the running game. That OL leans just as much on the offenses ability to make defenses respect the passing game thus spreading the line of scrimmage and naturally opening up holes for them, than it does their ability to open said holes themselves. 6 men committing to the box against GB means we aren't doing enough in our passing game. I fully expect 4 down lineman and a spy, when Rodgers & Co have defenses on their heels.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not convinced that they do, Captain.
Cobb is a great talent, but needs to be used a certain way; out of the backfield, gimmicky type plays. He excels at 'sandlot' ball when plays breakdown, but expecting him to be a true across the board #1?
Adams disappears too much; he's often cited for poor route running. Sure he has potential, but I don't see him as elie, and a lot of the hopes pinned on him come from flashes here and there and 2 big games last year.
Montgomery is a rookie who as I've stated in the past, I think the team is still figuring out what he does best and how to best use him.
Janis and Abby? Still relative unknowns who, despite all the issues with the passing game , have trouble getting on the field.
And the TE's offer next to no impact in the passing game.
Nothing can really be done at this point of the season, but irregardless of how well Nelson comes back next year, I'd like to see more size and speed added to the position next year. By any means available.

The Panthers make it work with Corey Brown, Jerricho Cotchery, Devin Funchess and Ted Ginn at receiver. While I'm aware that Greg Olsen is an important part of their passing game the Packers receiving corps is far superior to Carolina's.

The coaching staff has to find a way to help them separate.

 

[828Packer]

I see what you are saying. Makes a lot of sense and honestly never thought of it like that. I was just chalking it up to the line. So I guess we do miss Jordy more than we thought we did. But what WR do we have do you think that can be a deep threat? Randall thrives at the Slot....when there is a deep threat. So, is JJ or Davante or somebody else you think that can be a decent replacement for Jordy?

Honestly, our best big play man is Cobb. His speed and quickness allow him to challenge CB's off the snap which places more emphasis on safeties in coverage. That was evident yesterday when Cobb took a 53 yarder to the house.

I think James Jones was supposed to be the guy but against a decent secondary, he just doesn't have the quickness or speed which is probably the reason he was cut by a lot of other teams. He benefited just as much from the people around him and the system (like I am highlighting with Jordy now) as he did his own abilities, and those colors shown through outside of Green Bay.

Honestly, our best case is to allow Cobb to stretch defenses vertically, let Devante and R. Rodgers challenge the underneath and move James Jones all around. That's JMO however.

 

[PackerDNA]

The Panthers make it work with Corey Brown, Jerricho Cotchery, Devin Funchess and Ted Ginn at receiver. While I'm aware that Greg Olsen is an important part of their passing game the Packers receiving corps is far superior to Carolina's.

The coaching staff has to find a way to help them separate.

Better than Carolina's, yes. Enough talent to be among the leagues best, I'm not convinced.

 

[828Packer]

There's no doubt the offense has to make it work differently without Nelson but the unit still has enough talent to be one of the best in the league.

I look at our offense as a Ferrari as opposed to say Carolina, who I see as a mid-90's Tacoma.

On one hand, one requires a specific fuel, the finest synthetic oil, a strict maintenance schedule, the finest parts, and a special coolant.

The other can make do whether you change the oil at 3k or 8k, you throw 87 grade gas in it, you buy cheap Korean after market parts, and you just run water through the cooling system.

You'll get better results and performance with GB when all the parts come together, but you take one out and can't replace it, and you get a dud.

Carolina can be ugly at times and are definitely not refined, however they plug and play and do enough to get them through to the end and put enough points on the board to win the game.

We can be elite, but we need all our original parts. That's just how we're built.

 

[melvin dangerr]

I do not believe MM has ever given up full play calling so he is not getting a pass the buck ticket,but if he gave up some of the Offensive play calling it has long been time for the next coach up for calling D plays, no one heard me say fire Capers, which is popular sentiment, but will MM taking over full duties as play caller, and Capers stepping away from D calling solve the problem? Perhaps, BUT- the players are to blame for there lack of execution, I saw nothing wrong with the on the sideline mini rant, shows me some care I could be sinicle and wish MM were more of and in your face with players and coaches but we'll see...

 

[JP Doyal]

Honestly, our best big play man is Cobb. His speed and quickness allow him to challenge CB's off the snap which places more emphasis on safeties in coverage. That was evident yesterday when Cobb took a 53 yarder to the house.

I think James Jones was supposed to be the guy but against a decent secondary, he just doesn't have the quickness or speed which is probably the reason he was cut by a lot of other teams. He benefited just as much from the people around him and the system (like I am highlighting with Jordy now) as he did his own abilities, and those colors shown through outside of Green Bay.

Honestly, our best case is to allow Cobb to stretch defenses vertically, let Devante and R. Rodgers challenge the underneath and move James Jones all around. That's JMO however.

I think JJ thrives in the red zone. But the only thing I see about Cobb playing the outside is his Height. Now he a great WR and very quick, but do you think that hinders him? Also the thing with R.Rodgers I noticed is he doesn't finish his routes. I believe Joe Buck or Troy Aikmen commented on it as well. Idk if he is over thinking it or what but he isn't a strong TE.