Official studs and duds Viking game

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,630
Reaction score
8,890
Location
Madison, WI
stats lie. They were much better in week 2 than in week 1 and it showed in offensive production. But Week1? Give me a ******* break. you have to be blind to think the offensive line was remotely adequate that game. someone was getting whipped on almost every play, and badly. Coupled with not being able to run the ball. It was great LOL

I'm not going to dig too deep into this, because like you, I thought the OL looked terrible against the Bears. However, when ranking an entire OL, if they are adding up all 5 positions and their individual grades added up give them a final grade for the OL, I can see how the results could be deceptive. In that situation, I can see as a collective whole, the Packer OL ranks pretty high. But all that means is that you could have 1-2 weak links and even though they sucked, the other 3 guys played well enough to bring the total score up.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,630
Reaction score
8,890
Location
Madison, WI
Bulaga has been mostly dominant in pass pro. he absolutely stoned Mac and the others on several occasions. if he stays healthy and continues this level of play for the entire season, he's going to make a very tough decision for the front office in the off-season.

Fully agree. Bulaga has been a force at RT, with his only question mark being his health. I think he has missed an average of 5 games/season, including 2013 when he missed the entire season. Guessing that he has also played several games at way less than 100%.

But yes, he will be 31 in the off season and the Packers will have a very big decision on him to make, one that especially won't be easy if he makes it through this season relatively healthy. Because when he is healthy, he is a solid RT.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
507
Fully agree. Bulaga has been a force at RT, with his only question mark being his health. I think he has missed an average of 5 games/season, including 2013 when he missed the entire season. Guessing that he has also played several games at way less than 100%.

But yes, he will be 31 in the off season and the Packers will have a very big decision on him to make, one that especially won't be easy if he makes it through this season relatively healthy. Because when he is healthy, he is a solid RT.

I'm going to disagree with you here.

When healthy, Bulaga is an elite RT. There are few better than him. He's not "solid", he is elite.

I'd re-sign him. Even with the injuries, he's a better option than most. Draft a guy to replace him next year, but still re-sign him.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,630
Reaction score
8,890
Location
Madison, WI
I'm going to disagree with you here.

When healthy, Bulaga is an elite RT. There are few better than him. He's not "solid", he is elite.

I'd re-sign him. Even with the injuries, he's a better option than most. Draft a guy to replace him next year, but still re-sign him.

LOL....I contemplated using the term "elite", but knew someone would question me on using that word and more than likely you. ;)

So I guess if "solid" isn't strong enough for you, I am fine with "above solid", "near elite", "borderline fantastic", "positively outstanding"......whatever fits your narrative of saying that a guy is "pretty damn good". Go crazy with it.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,500
Reaction score
2,157
Having gone through the 40 AR drop backs against the Bears in pretty good detail, most of those plays he was going to his first option.

In regards to how fast he's getting the ball out, a few of his extended plays where he escapes the pocket or improvises can skew those snap to throw numbers. For the most part, I think he was getting the ball out in an acceptable amount of time. Also, the fact that the Packers were in a lot of 3rd and 10+ situations will also skew those numbers, as the play designs were set up to where Rodgers had to wait for receivers to get to the sticks for a high percentage first down possibility.

Additionally, sacks aren't the only metric to demonstrate whether or not the offensive line provided adequate protection. There are also hurries, QB hits, throwaways, etc.

Anyone with a decent set of eyes could clearly see that our offensive line got their collective ***** handed to them by the Bears defensive front. Bulaga and Bakh held up their end of the bargain for the most part, but interior pressures damn near put Rodgers on the sidelines before he was able to get through his first progression.

I really like stats, but they rarely tell the whole story. And for any statistical metric to suggest that they've performed as the 2nd best unit in the league should tell you that the metric is quite flawed.

Protection was solid against Minny. Chicago though? Hell nah.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,872
Reaction score
6,804
Okay, first off, as a pass blocking unit, the Packers are pretty dang good. Watch the rest of the league for some perspective.

On the edges of the OL, we are very good. Inside, we've had some more issues. But still, overall, easily better than average. Upper quarter of the league for sure.

If people don't see that Rodgers has a tendency to hold onto the ball too long, then I'm just not sure what they're watching. The tape backs it up. The data backs it up. He eschews a lot of shorter passes trying to get big plays. When he was younger and more mobile, it worked really well. Now...not as much. He's still good, but obviously still capable of making mistakes, and he definitely is making mistakes. It's undeniable.

TL/DR: It's pretty obvious to see that Rodgers is at least partially to blame for a good number of his sacks.
I think there should’ve been better and more frequent designed plays to compensate for an aggressive pass rush. An antidote so to speak. We failed him last year by all but ignoring the TEs and RBs in the short passing game. Lo and behold we get a HC who supports this theory (no accident)
It’s no secret, the only way you beat Rodgers is by putting him on his back and pressuring him repeatedly and getting him off his game.

While it’s true that Aaron sometimes holds the ball too long, conversely, he makes chicken salad out of chicken poop on many others. This doesn’t even account for his historically ultra-low turnover ratio. Do you want him to throw more at the cost of a 2-1 or 3-2 INT rate?
That’s something you can’t put a price tag on. I’ll take 4 sacks vs 2 if it keeps him at a 14-1 TD-INT.

We can control what we can control... the plays getting out quicker by giving more short range options.
 
Last edited:

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
4,852
Reaction score
1,448
I never denied the fact that Rodgers holds on to the ball, I just feel like it's a bit overblown, particular these past couple years due to circumstances. Rodgers wasn't always like this, or at least I certainly don't think so.
How long ago was it when receivers not getting open became an issue? Seems like that's when it started to become a more urgent issue. He's always done it his whole career, really, but it's been exacerbated the last few years. Also, since he's older now, it would be smarter to not let him take so many hits.

Totally agree. Totally. The change is coming. LaFleur will make it happen, I'm sure. They both seem to have a great working relationship, and I do think there is a bunch of stuff for LaFleur to "unteach."
It appears to me that Rodgers is at least trying to buy into LaFleur's system, which they've described as a "collaboration", so I find that encouraging.
 

Do7

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
220
How long ago was it when receivers not getting open became an issue? Seems like that's when it started to become a more urgent issue. He's always done it his whole career, really, but it's been exacerbated the last few years. Also, since he's older now, it would be smarter to not let him take so many hits.
I feel like the issue really began more noticable last year, especially with the new receivers. Rodgers even made a comment regarding it earlier during the offseason where none of them were really standing out. With McCarthy's system, I think the importance was having receivers get seperation in order for Rodgers to throw it to the open guy, but none of these guys can create seperations. Bare in mind prior to him going down 2 years ago, The Packers were 4-1, and the offense was clicking with Jordy, Adams, Cobb. Hell the year before when they ran the table and everything, the offense really came into strides at the end. Maybe it's the new system, but I also think it's the receivers inability to create seperation, which in turn Rodgers causes Rodgers to hold on to the ball, because he doesn't want to throw a pick. I do agree that he should resort to short checkdowns on occasion. We see it work for Brady. The weird thing is that he used to do that if no one was open, now he's either neglecting them or missing them altogether.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
930
Am I allowed to call LaFleur a dud for his comments after the game about balancing out the carries between Williams and Jones? I mean, I had hope for LaFleur but if he really means that then I'm kinda willing to say the Packers might have gotten a dud.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
holding the ball too long is a symptom, of the last several years, of the old (big-play, purposeful scramble-drill) offense. there's no place for it in the new offense as it's designed. the "work in progress" offense is the result. it has too much shot gun. they've reduced it from last year but there's still too much. they've carried over some spread formations too. that's not a staple of the new offense, as it's designed, either. something's got to give.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,630
Reaction score
8,890
Location
Madison, WI
Am I allowed to call LaFleur a dud for his comments after the game about balancing out the carries between Williams and Jones? I mean, I had hope for LaFleur but if he really means that then I'm kinda willing to say the Packers might have gotten a dud.

You are "allowed" to say almost anything you want, whether you are right or wrong is a whole different question. ;)

I don't see anything wrong with MLF making the statement, to me its just saying "we probably gave AJ too many carries and we need to be cautious with overloading him". I think we will continue to see AJ get more carries than Williams, but MLF isn't afraid to spell him when needed and that is a good thing to me.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,500
Reaction score
2,157
holding the ball too long is a symptom, of the last several years, of the old (big-play, purposeful scramble-drill) offense. there's no place for it in the new offense as it's designed. the "work in progress" offense is the result. it has too much shot gun. they've reduced it from last year but there's still too much. they've carried over some spread formations too. that's not a staple of the new offense, as it's designed, either. somethings got to give.
Man you're just a one string banjo, aren't you?
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
930
You are "allowed" to say almost anything you want, whether you are right or wrong is a whole different question. ;)

I don't see anything wrong with MLF making the statement, to me its just saying "we probably gave AJ too many carries and we need to be cautious with overloading him". I think we will continue to see AJ get more carries than Williams, but MLF isn't afraid to spell him when needed and that is a good thing to me.

I agree with everything you said. However, my comment was that if he really does "balance out the carries" (and I take that to mean getting closer to 50/50) then he's not just spelling Jones; and that would be the problem.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,872
Reaction score
6,804
I agree with everything you said. However, my comment was that if he really does "balance out the carries" (and I take that to mean getting closer to 50/50) then he's not just spelling Jones; and that would be the problem.
I would ask this for good reason, did he say “carries” or did he really mean “opportunities”. One of Jamaals’ strengths is in the receiving production.
I think we need him more involved in some short passing packages. He’s ideal for that chip block and then rolling into the flat with a few yards of room.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
930
I would ask this for good reason, did he say “carries” or did he really mean “opportunities”. One of Jamaals’ strengths is in the receiving production.
I think we need him more involved in some short passing packages. He’s ideal for that chip block and then rolling into the flat with a few yards of room.

Jones is just as good at receiving and much more elusive after the catch. So, yeah, Williams can do it, but Jones is still the better option in this scenario.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
Jones is just as good at receiving and much more elusive after the catch. So, yeah, Williams can do it, but Jones is still the better option in this scenario.
He doesn’t catch the ball nearly as cleanly as Williams. It’s obvious
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Ok, but he still catches it, and then he's far superior after the catch. I'm not interested in aesthetics, I'm interested in effectiveness.

Albeit a small sample size Williams had more yards after the catch than Jones during the first two games on the same amount of receptions.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
930
Albeit a small sample size Williams had more yards after the catch than Jones during the first two games on the same amount of receptions.

You said it yourself, "small sample size". Unless you think Williams is the more dynamic player with the ball?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
You said it yourself, "small sample size". Unless you think Williams is the more dynamic player with the ball?

Well, let's take a look at their career numbers. Williams (516 yards after catch on 59 receptions, 8.75 average) has significantly better numbers than Jones (41-294, 7.17).

I'm not arguing that Williams is the more dynamic player but him catching the ball more smoothly allows him to gain more yards after the catch than Jones.
 

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
731
Shout out to some ex Packers.
CM3 had 2 sacks vs the Browns and now has 4 in three games.
Ha Ha Clinton Dix had a monster game vs Washington.
Trend continues of guys leaving the Packers defense and thriving on a new team.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
Washington is going to be fighting the dolphins for the worst record in the league. It was far more fun watching us play against him, than having him play for us. He's not "thriving". And good for Clay, though I've watched part of the past 2 Rams games, if you want to see 2 players "thriving" their last names are Smith and they play for the packers. His level of play doesn't even compare to theirs at the moment, 2 sacks 2 days ago or not.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
Washington is going to be fighting the dolphins for the worst record in the league. It was far more fun watching us play against him, than having him play for us. He's not "thriving". And good for Clay, though I've watched part of the past 2 Rams games, if you want to see 2 players "thriving" their last names are Smith and they play for the packers. His level of play doesn't even compare to theirs at the moment, 2 sacks 2 days ago or not.
i agree. i think 2 of his sacks he was basically unblocked, which shouldn't be sneezed at, but i'm just sayin.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,630
Reaction score
8,890
Location
Madison, WI
I watched some of the Rams game against Cleveland. It was odd, I actually was wanting the Rams to win, before I snapped into reality and remembered them winning isn't good for the Packers. Not sure why, but I just don't like the "attitude" of the Browns cast of Superstars and a few of their over zealous fans declaring them a dynasty after so many years of being a disaster.

Anyway, back to Clay Matthews. Clay is now playing with much better players around him, than he had in Green Bay. Add to that his snap count has been reduced quite a bit and you are going to have a fresher, better Clay.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,380
Reaction score
1,259
I watched some of the Rams game against Cleveland. It was odd, I actually was wanting the Rams to win, before I snapped into reality and remembered them winning isn't good for the Packers. Not sure why, but I just don't like the "attitude" of the Browns cast of Superstars and a few of their over zealous fans declaring them a dynasty after so many years of being a disaster.

Anyway, back to Clay Matthews. Clay is now playing with much better players around him, than he had in Green Bay. Add to that his snap count has been reduced quite a bit and you are going to have a fresher, better Clay.
I was feeling the same way... wishing the Browns could lose without the Rams getting a W lol. As far as Clay is concerned, I completely agree... he still has gas in the tank.. but he can’t be THE guy. With the Rams he doesn’t have to be.
 

Members online

Top