Who gets fired first?

[Deleted member 6794]

If the scheme and play call results in Cobb running free in the secondary and either Rodgers throws the ball in the turf five yards in front of him, or Rodgers throws a perfect pass and Cobb drops it, the execution, not call and scheme are obviously not to blame.

While that´s true, that happened on one randomly picked play. Most of the time the receivers have troubles getting open, especially against good defenses, and the coaches haven´t used enough man-beater routes to create separation.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

While that´s true, that happened on one randomly picked play. Most of the time the receivers have troubles getting open, especially against good defenses, and the coaches haven´t used enough man-beater routes to create separation.

I can't pretend to be educated in receiver route planning or scheming, but it sure appears to me that most of these plays involve "go out there and beat your man" routes .

It seems the only way that these would work is if A. The receivers became bigger and faster, or B. Rodgers threw a perfect pass in a small window each and every down, and the receiver made a great contested catch each time. Counting on any of these things to happen doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

Maybe we should draw up some plays and send them to McCarthy. It wouldn't be difficult, all we would have to do is look at pretty much any other team in the league.

 

[Mondio]

was Cobb in the endzone to give a chance at tying the game in Carolina a "man beater" route? Did it work? should we run it more? If it ends the same, with Rodgers getting smoked in the face by a 300lb Dlinemen and tossing an INT, is it better for our offense? I know, I know, i'm cherry picking plays. Silly me

 

[TJV]

While that´s true, that happened on one randomly picked play. Most of the time the receivers have troubles getting open, especially against good defenses, and the coaches haven´t used enough man-beater routes to create separation.

Yes, that happened on one random play. That's why I used it as an example that the statement "bad play calling and scheming produces bad execution" isn't true in my opinion. Even if the Packers call an isolation route and Cobb faces press coverage, if he executes a "clean getaway" perfectly he can get open. Even if the play call and scheme was bad. Before someone asks: That of course doesn't mean I'm in favor of bad play calling or scheming.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

was Cobb in the endzone to give a chance at tying the game in Carolina a "man beater" route? Did it work? should we run it more? If it ends the same, with Rodgers getting smoked in the face by a 300lb Dlinemen and tossing an INT, is it better for our offense? I know, I know, i'm cherry picking plays. Silly me

He got open, but the play didn't develop quickly enough given the struggles of the offensive line that day.

Weren't the TDs that Cobb scored against KC on screens, aka man-beater routes? I don't see why they couldn't have run something similar given how close they were to the goal line, and Adams has proven to be able to get a few extra yards with a defense in his face after the catch.

 

[Mondio]

He got open, but the play didn't develop quickly enough given the struggles of the offensive line that day.

Weren't the TDs that Cobb scored against KC on screens, aka man-beater routes? I don't see why they couldn't have run something similar given how close they were to the goal line, and Adams has proven to be able to get a few extra yards with a defense in his face after the catch.

exactly and the take home message should be, when they work they're great when they don't, they don't. Doesn't matter what you call. If you can't keep the Rush from getting to Rodgers, if you can't catch the ball, if you can't deliver the ball it doesn't matter. There's a reason teams don't run screens all game long, WR, RB or otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

was Cobb in the endzone to give a chance at tying the game in Carolina a "man beater" route? Did it work? should we run it more?

Yeah, the man beater route on that play worked perfectly as Cobb was wide open in the endzone. And yes, we should run it way more often.

 

[Mondio]

Yeah, the man beater route on that play worked perfectly as Cobb was wide open in the endzone. And yes, we should run it way more often.

it did, all the way up to the point when it counted and we couldn't keep a 300lb DL off Rodgers long enough to find him wide open in the endzone, which brings me back to my original point. Call what you want, if we don't block, don't deliver the ball on target and don't catch it, it won't matter. and what plays set up that man beater route at the endzone? running lots of man beater routes all game long?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

it did, all the way up to the point when it counted and we couldn't keep a 300lb DL off Rodgers long enough to find him wide open in the endzone, which brings me back to my original point.

The coaches mostly rely on our receivers winning isolated one-on-one battles but our guys have bern struggling to do so. Man-beater routes make it easier to gain separation from a corner so it's hard to understand why they don't use it more often or you not getting this is actually a good thing.

In addition by receivers getting open it makes everyone else's job easier, including the struggling offensive line as well as Rodgers.

and what plays set up that man beater route at the endzone? running lots of man beater routes all game long?

The primary reason for the Packers nearly mounting a comeback was the Panthers stopping to compete. Rodgers running a no huddle offense helped matters as well.

 

[Mondio]

yeah, I don't get that an open receiver is better than a covered one

Then again, there's a reason sometimes different teams run different offenses and of course GB runs these routes too and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. But you're probably right, just calling different plays will mean they catch more and block better and throw better, just because of the play call in the huddle.

 

[azrsx05]

Look at what the Lions have done since changing their OC. They were 1-7 before, now they are 3-0. What C00oter has done is simplified the offense and is getting much more production out of the offense. The Packers coaches are way too damn stubborn and their ability to adjust to the players strengths is terrible.

The Patriots continue to play well without anyone relevant in the receivers group. Because they are calling plays, coaching to the guys they have.

I think McCarthy and Clements are over complicating things for a very young group and that is what's going to cost them this season. They are thinking too much and causing them to drop balls, run wrong routes, Rodgers trying to make up with bad throws and trying too hard to make the play for the receivers. Sometimes, simple is better.

 

[Sanguine camper]

My prediction is that that Packers will scapegoat Clements and fire him at the end of the season when the team is 8-8 or 7-9. As long as Murphy is the Pres of the team, MM TT and Capers won't have any accountability. Murphy is in their back pocket.

 

[Raptorman]

What's wrong with this poll. It only lets me pick one at a time.

 

[El Guapo]

It must be a treat for a Vikings fan to see Packers fans jumping up and down in panic mode!

 

[Half Empty]

It must be a treat for a Vikings fan to see Packers fans jumping up and down in panic mode!

Yup, it's been a while since there's been a legitimate reason to do so.

 

[TJV]

I think McCarthy and Clements are over complicating things for a very young group and that is what's going to cost them this season. They are thinking too much and causing them to drop balls, run wrong routes, Rodgers trying to make up with bad throws and trying too hard to make the play for the receivers. Sometimes, simple is better.

So when a receiver is open and the ball hits him in the hands he doesn't catch it because he's thinking too much? I'm not buying it and it looks like huge stretch to place all the blame on the coaching staff while giving the receivers (pardon the pun) a pass.

 

[azrsx05]

So when a receiver is open and the ball hits him in the hands he doesn't catch it because he's thinking too much? I'm not buying it and it looks like huge stretch to place all the blame on the coaching staff while giving the receivers (pardon the pun) a pass.

I don't give the players a pass. They are just as accountable in their preparation. But these are young guys and the coaching staff has not adjusted to it. How is it that the Lions have the exact same guys but a different guy calling the plays and now they've turned it around? How is it that the Patriots constantly get nobodies and make them productive? Teams have figured out the Packers offense and they've done little to adjust. Also, we get hot running, we start passing. 3rd and short with a loaded box and they run Lacy to the outside when consistently putting a fb in front of him gets them the 1st.

 

[Mondio]

with their new offensive coordinator they've scored 18, 18 and 45. They scored 40+ with their old coordinator too and one game with 13. The rest were all 26, 28, 43, 45, 37 and all above 24. Since they fired their offensive coordinator they've gone from averaging over 30 points given up per game to around 15. Think firing the OC was the difference?

 

[TJV]

I don't give the players a pass. They are just as accountable in their preparation.

I'm glad to hear it, but that idea certainly wasn't conveyed in your post blaming the scheme for dropped balls, running wrong routes and Rodgers making bad throws.

BTW, for everyone who continually compares the Packers organization to the Patriots, keep in mind Bill Belichick is probably going to go down in history as one of the three (or so) all-time great HCs. And he's damn good in his role as de facto GM. To me the comparison is on the order of fans of other teams in the 60s complaining their HC isn't as good as Lombardi.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

with their new offensive coordinator they've scored 18, 18 and 45. They scored 40+ with their old coordinator too and one game with 13. The rest were all 26, 28, 43, 45, 37 and all above 24. Since they fired their offensive coordinator they've gone from averaging over 30 points given up per game to around 15. Think firing the OC was the difference?

The Lions averaged 19.9 points with Lombardi as their offensive coordinator, scoring less than 20 points five out of seven games and never scored more than 37.

While it took them three games with ****** as their OC to score considerably more points the offense performed better during those games.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think all of us in this forum should be fired. Despite all of our collective brilliance's the Packers season is in free fall!

I for one if retained for next season will agree to a pay cut.

 

[Mondio]

The Lions averaged 19.9 points with Lombardi as their offensive coordinator, scoring less than 20 points five out of seven games and never scored more than 37.

While it took them three games with ****** as their OC to score considerably more points the offense performed better during those games.

Pardon me, I was off by a week. I thought he was fired after the KC game going into the bye, not 2 weeks before.and again, stats don't tell the entire story. They played MN, Seattle, Denver and AZ. No defenses there. Since they've scored 10, 18, 13, and 45. Meanwhile the defense has gone from giving up 30 to giving up 15. But it probably was the firing of the OC

 

[Half Empty]

I think all of us in this forum should be fired. Despite all of our collective brilliance's the Packers season is in free fall!

I for one if retained for next season will agree to a pay cut.

Not fair - our collective brilliance was never acted upon.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not fair - our collective brilliance was never acted upon.

LOL.....we might be as good as the Cleveland Browns had it been

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Pardon me, I was off by a week. I thought he was fired after the KC game going into the bye, not 2 weeks before.and again, stats don't tell the entire story. They played MN, Seattle, Denver and AZ. No defenses there. Since they've scored 10, 18, 13, and 45. Meanwhile the defense has gone from giving up 30 to giving up 15. But it probably was the firing of the OC

Sorry, Mondio, but you weren't only off by a week. With Lombardi as their OC the Lions scored 10, 12, 16, 17, 19. 28 and 37. They never scored 26, 43 or 45 as you mentioned.

Their offense has turned the ball over only three times over the last four games compared to 18 over the first seven, something that has helped the defense as well.

Stats aside, watching them play there's no doubt their offense has improved since changing the OC.