Studs and duds Panther game

[Deleted member 6794]

Joe Thomas was on the block... so solutions were available I don't want to hear it.

The Browns reportedly asked for two first-round picks in return. Combined with his cap hit that was a price too steep to acquire him.

 

[C-Lee]

I agree we shouldn't but unfortunately we do.

Hopefully we will figure it out. I'd like to see what we look like with all of our WR's out there. There was some good signs in that 4th quarter offensivley, too.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Exactly. Tired of toooo many people giving TT a pass. If 20+ Gms didn't pass on Rodgers I doubt him or MM is here.

He gets idolized as some sort of genius with an eye for talent who built his team through the draft, when he is the beneficiary of being in a weak conference with a QB who performs at the top of the league each year.

The trade deadline came and gone and once again he sat on his hands . Being clairvoyant really has nothin to do with the current situation because the oline especially the tackles have been soft and suspect all year. Joe Thomas was on the block... so solutions were available I don't want to hear it. Just hope Rodgers survives long enough to get hammered in the playoffs. But hey, at least we win the North....which isn't even a guarantee.

TT doesn't want to win, he wants to play God. If he had any interest in doing the former, he would have let others have more say in the drafting process after his many 1st round busts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hopefully we will figure it out. I'd like to see what we look like with all of our WR's out there. There was some good signs in that 4th quarter offensivley, too.

I don't put a lot of stock into the offense's performance against the Panthers prevent defense.

 

[C-Lee]

I don't put a lot of stock into the offense's performance against the Panthers prevent defense.

Stay positive, breh.

 

[C-Lee]

"PatriotPlayer"
Joined: November 2

hmmm.....

 

[rodell330]

The Browns reportedly asked for two first-round picks in return. Combined with his cap hit that was a price too steep to acquire him.

That's interesting because I read the Browns wanted either a 2nd or a 1st in 2016 which was very doable. TT could've pulled this off.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...-latest-news-speculation-on-browns-lts-future

 

[Sky King]

Sometimes a positive trait is related very closely to one that is negative. Knowing where to draw the line is the trick.

Studs: Persistence. MM and staff don't waiver from their objectives very easily. They're not jumpy and impatient, preferring to favor the long-term over the short-term. They choose to stay with players and schemes until they achieve competence all-around. It works-out favorably sometimes, i.e., Shields, Sitton, Lang, Daniels.

Duds: Stubbornness. MM and staff don't let-go soon enough when it appears a player has reached his capacity to deliver what is expected, and that their level of play falls short of projections and especially need.* They also seem to ignore the obvious, such as when the opposition has figured out how to stop the O or gash the D. They're slow to adjust, preferring to attribute the problems to execution, pad level, etc., instead of a lack of basic talent or football instincts.

*This is where TT comes in. There may be nobody to take the place of a starter who is underwhelming, i.e., Rodgers/Backman. FA is scorned in favor of transforming picks into the likes of Palmer, Mulumba, Goodson, Tretter, etc., as backups (Palmer is a starter only because Barrington was injured). And dare I say two more who were drafted to fill a need (that currently exists and begs for a solution) but are almost completely unused as position players at that position of need: Abbrederis and Janis. They were drafted to address a need or why draft them in the first place. Are these two bad picks or is it that stubborn coaches cling to failing players and schemes to the point that they ignore trying something new?

 

[Mondio]

I don't put a lot of stock into the offense's performance against the Panthers prevent defense.

Other than it showed we didn't quit, i'm not putting a lot into it either

 

[PackerDNA]

I don't put a lot of stock into the offense's performance against the Panthers prevent defense.

By Rodgers own account, they were playing a lot of sandlot ball.
When it's 37-14 is a good indicator of things yesterday. Getting 3 and outs on 5 of their 1st 6 possessions, and save for a 40 yard gain on the last play of the first half less than 100 yards total offence is a better indicator. Getting it going down by 23 against a defense changing the way it plays to trade yards for time isn't a good indicator that things have turned around.
If anyone thinks it is, then I submit that the Packers didn't blow out the Chiefs ; the Chiefs 3 late TD's weren't garbage time vs a defense playing softer, and that the Chiefs would have won if they just had a couple more minutes.
Like it or not gang, this team has been embarrassed 2 weeks in a row by top tier competition. There are, and have been serious issues, and they are serious enough that it won't be so quick and easy to turn things around soon, if at all this season.

 

[Sky King]

By Rodgers own account, they were playing a lot of sandlot ball.
When it's 37-14 is a good indicator of things yesterday. Getting 3 and outs on 5 of their 1st 6 possessions, and save for a 40 yard gain on the last play of the first half less than 100 yards total offence is a better indicator. Getting it going down by 23 against a defense changing the way it plays to trade yards for time isn't a good indicator that things have turned around.
If anyone thinks it is, then I submit that the Packers didn't blow out the Chiefs ; the Chiefs 3 late TD's weren't garbage time vs a defense playing softer, and that the Chiefs would have won if they just had a couple more minutes.
Like it or not gang, this team has been embarrassed 2 weeks in a row by top tier competition. There are, and have been serious issues, and they are serious enough that it won't be so quick and easy to turn things around soon, if at all this season.

The needle is definitely point downwards, at this point in the season. Even a lopsided victory at home against the Lions may turn out to be fools gold for obvious reasons. Perish the thought that Lions actually stop a Packers team that has, so far, been hell-bent on continuing to do that which used to work.

 

[PFanCan]

Play calling for the O was a problem they did almost nothing the pass rush. They ran 2 screens, both worked well and yet continue until it got stopped. Pass blocking was really bad. The defense is being moved on at will.

I agree. Though I am quite the noob when it comes to diagnosing the complexities of the NFL game, some of what I saw was surprising (to me). For example, and I invite some of the experts on this forum to help out explaining why these things occurred:

1. Why did they continue to run with Lacy? I was screaming when I saw him trot out for that unfortunate series that ended with his fumble. Sure, fumbles happen. Starks fumbles, too. But, it was clear early on who was hot and who was not. Plus, this seems to be a longer term issue. Ok, Lacy is better at picking up the blitz. But, Starks is better at screens, which counters the rush/blitz in the first place. Starks is averaging over a half yard better than Lacy this season, yet he continues to be the backup. Why?

2. They play Ripkowski once and he gains 18 yards while plowing over a Panther defender. Then, we don't see him again. Why?

3. I recall two screens to Starks. Both went for big yards. But, no more attempts. I don't recall a single screen that failed.

4. A. Rodgers was inexplicably focused on the right side of the field, despite being repeatedly hit from the left side. One would think he would start to peek that way to see who is coming. IDK, just seemed like he didn't have his usual "wide" awareness.

5. I don't recall a single boot leg. Deep pocket drops over and over, was mostly what I recall. Why?

6. Cobb did not get the ball a single time out of the back field. Nothing. No jet sweeps, nothing. All season long, they have only handed the ball to Cobb twice. Total yards = 22 for an average of 11 yards per play. Why not more often?

7. The coaches put in Jake Ryan and he performed well. At the point that the game was pretty much out of reach, why not try others? Is Gunter so bad or ill prepared that he would be a disaster out there in place of one of the more senior CBs- even Goodson? Why not give him a shot?

8. Why not try Aberderis or Janis? I noted that on the 4th and long play that Jones caught, Jones was running what looked like half speed. He actually looked (to me) to be surprised that the ball was coming his way. Prior to the pass, he was (as it looked to me) half-heartedly juking left and right and the defender was just running with him stride for stride, but Jones did not look like he had any expectation that the ball was going to come his way. Just looked strange to me. Why not put some fresh legs in and have them run simple routes?

Again, I am a noob. What do I know. But, a fan can vent and wonder all the same.

 

[Carl]

This. It all starts at the top. Losing shouldn't be an option. We look like we have no business being on the field with the elite teams. Until we have people at the top who want to win instead of beating their dead horse of a regime, it won't happen.

I'm sure the guys at the top don't care at all about winning....

 

[Half Empty]

"PatriotPlayer"
Joined: November 2

hmmm.....

Patriot player has a negative viewpoint and starts posting after a bad loss. Hmmmmm

C-Lee has a positive viewpoint and starts posting the day after the Pack goes 6-0. Hmmmmm

 

[PFanCan]

Patriot player has a negative viewpoint and starts posting after a bad loss. Hmmmmm

C-Lee has a positive viewpoint and starts posting the day after the Pack goes 6-0. Hmmmmm

The forum should only allow new members after a tie, perhaps?

(you should also change your login name to "50% filled & 50% not filled".)

 

[easyk83]

Sometimes a positive trait is related very closely to one that is negative. Knowing where to draw the line is the trick.

Studs: Persistence. MM and staff don't waiver from their objectives very easily. They're not jumpy and impatient, preferring to favor the long-term over the short-term. They choose to stay with players and schemes until they achieve competence all-around. It works-out favorably sometimes, i.e., Shields, Sitton, Lang, Daniels.

Duds: Stubbornness. MM and staff don't let-go soon enough when it appears a player has reached his capacity to deliver what is expected, and that their level of play falls short of projections and especially need.* They also seem to ignore the obvious, such as when the opposition has figured out how to stop the O or gash the D. They're slow to adjust, preferring to attribute the problems to execution, pad level, etc., instead of a lack of basic talent or football instincts.

*This is where TT comes in. There may be nobody to take the place of a starter who is underwhelming, i.e., Rodgers/Backman. FA is scorned in favor of transforming picks into the likes of Palmer, Mulumba, Goodson, Tretter, etc., as backups (Palmer is a starter only because Barrington was injured). And dare I say two more who were drafted to fill a need (that currently exists and begs for a solution) but are almost completely unused as position players at that position of need: Abbrederis and Janis. They were drafted to address a need or why draft them in the first place. Are these two bad picks or is it that stubborn coaches cling to failing players and schemes to the point that they ignore trying something new?

Having faith in his draft picks is what motivated TT to move on from Favre and onto Aaron Rodgers. It also caused him to cut ties with Greg Jennings when he wanted too much and move ahead with Nelson and Cobb. You can't always have it both ways.

As for Palmer, he did start because Barrington was injured and he kept his job because Joe Thomas was too small and Jake Ryan was injured. Jake Ryan is healthy and looks like an upgrade at the position, might even be better than Barrington.

How much of the production from Janis, Abby is the result of Aaron freezing them out? Janis has what percentage of this teams plays in the 30+ yard range? James Jones can't get separation, why is he still out wide so much? Why doesn't Aaron throw look off Janis even when he's wide open? Sure part of that is coaching, Coaches need to say look Aaron either throw to the wide open man or else.

 

[C-Lee]

Patriot player has a negative viewpoint and starts posting after a bad loss. Hmmmmm

C-Lee has a positive viewpoint and starts posting the day after the Pack goes 6-0. Hmmmmm

 

[longtimefan]

Don't participate in chat. In order to prevent harassment in threads, can you give a example or two of what constituted the bold?

What I just quoted from him in this thread is what I consider harassing someone for having a positive out look..

 

[PFanCan]

... Coaches need to say look Aaron either throw to the wide open man or else.

I don't disagree with you, Easy, but I chuckled at that last comment. What exactly would the "or else" be?

Again, I get what you are saying, but "what else" is there?

Part of the good news about these last two humbling and embarrassing losses is that PERHAPS A. Rodgers will stop drinking his own kool-aid, realize that he is not the best QB in the game today, is making mistakes just like his teammates, and get back to work.

 

[longtimefan]

Don't participate in chat. In order to prevent harassment in threads, can you give a example or two of what consWhuted the bold?

This is where Carl says that everyone is overreacting and we are forgetting about that for six games.

While it isn't horrible what he said... But we can't have people expression n opinion thrn being ridiculed for it

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I agree. Though I am quite the noob when it comes to diagnosing the complexities of the NFL game, some of what I saw was surprising (to me). For example, and I invite some of the experts on this forum to help out explaining why these things occurred:

1. Why did they continue to run with Lacy? I was screaming when I saw him trot out for that unfortunate series that ended with his fumble. Sure, fumbles happen. Starks fumbles, too. But, it was clear early on who was hot and who was not. Plus, this seems to be a longer term issue. Ok, Lacy is better at picking up the blitz. But, Starks is better at screens, which counters the rush/blitz in the first place. Starks is averaging over a half yard better than Lacy this season, yet he continues to be the backup. Why?

2. They play Ripkowski once and he gains 18 yards while plowing over a Panther defender. Then, we don't see him again. Why?

3. I recall two screens to Starks. Both went for big yards. But, no more attempts. I don't recall a single screen that failed.

4. A. Rodgers was inexplicably focused on the right side of the field, despite being repeatedly hit from the left side. One would think he would start to peek that way to see who is coming. IDK, just seemed like he didn't have his usual "wide" awareness.

5. I don't recall a single boot leg. Deep pocket drops over and over, was mostly what I recall. Why?

6. Cobb did not get the ball a single time out of the back field. Nothing. No jet sweeps, nothing. All season long, they have only handed the ball to Cobb twice. Total yards = 22 for an average of 11 yards per play. Why not more often?

7. The coaches put in Jake Ryan and he performed well. At the point that the game was pretty much out of reach, why not try others? Is Gunter so bad or ill prepared that he would be a disaster out there in place of one of the more senior CBs- even Goodson? Why not give him a shot?

8. Why not try Aberderis or Janis? I noted that on the 4th and long play that Jones caught, Jones was running what looked like half speed. He actually looked (to me) to be surprised that the ball was coming his way. Prior to the pass, he was (as it looked to me) half-heartedly juking left and right and the defender was just running with him stride for stride, but Jones did not look like he had any expectation that the ball was going to come his way. Just looked strange to me. Why not put some fresh legs in and have them run simple routes?

Again, I am a noob. What do I know. But, a fan can vent and wonder all the same.

Jones seemed like he had no interest in getting open. Maybe he's frustrated because he doesn't get the ball or there is a sack when he is open. Either way, the coaches aren't getting anyone on the same page.

 

[TJV]

TT doesn't want to win, he wants to play God. If he had any interest in doing the former, he would have let others have more say in the drafting process after his many 1st round busts.

IMO the bolded sentence is in the running for one of the most ridiculous ever posted here. And that's saying a lot. Why in the world wouldn't Thompson want to win? (Doesn't 'playing God' imply a huge ego? Wouldn't someone with a huge ego want to feed it by winning?) And BTW, how much say do others have in the drafting process? You have no idea except for what you and the rest of us read and what we read is a lot of people, from the personnel people to the scouts, to the coaching staff have a say in the drafting process.

 

[PFanCan]

While it isn't horrible what he said... But we can't have people expression n opinion thrn being ridiculed for it

I actually thought that PackwillBeback's post was kind of funny and poked light humor at Carl's effervescent optimism. Just as Rodell takes endless pokes at his ever-present negativism.

IMO, if you take a strong stand or are on the end of the spectrum, expect trouble. Or, be like me and saying nothing useful and no one ever gets angered. Except Rams fans.

 

[Half Empty]

While it isn't horrible what he said... But we can't have people expression n opinion thrn being ridiculed for it

Just cannot agree with that at all. IMO, the mods are here to keep the forum on the rails, and this is certainly no worse than someone saying "this is where Half Empty comes out and says (whatever)". with which I'm fine. Over the past couple of weeks, it really seems like the mods have a much thinner skin than the folks they're 'protecting'.

 

[Half Empty]

The forum should only allow new members after a tie, perhaps?

(you should also change your login name to "50% filled & 50% not filled".)

Also have to make sure we don't pots and kettles posting in the same thread.