Will The Packers Get To 13-3 In 2016?

[PackAttack12]

You had me until this. Last season it was fixable too, it just never was fixed. The things you ran down as mistakes are pretty much the same things that were being said last year about the offense. That is what worries me. This isn't one or two games with a few mental mistakes here and there, its game after game of inconsistent play by AR and the receiving corp. and is even more pronounced against quality defenses. Sure, it would be nice to have a running attack to open the passing game up, but that isn't how this offense is designed. The passing game is suppose to open up the running game.

I respectfully disagree in this sense - I get what you are saying, but the reason why I say this year is fixable and last season wasn't is because I am attributing our current struggles exclusively to miscommunication, lack of cohesiveness, etc and I am pinpointing the root cause to the lack of preseason snaps.

I get that we aren't seeing the results right now, but I see far more potential in this offense right now than I see last year. The 2nd half of the Minnesota game showed me something. We were sustaining drives and moving the chains. But we didn't cash in on a chip shot FG, and Rodgers uncharacteristically turned the ball over on the last two possessions. That took points off of the board no matter which way you want to look at it, and if you can score 20+ points on that Minnesota defense, even WITH the miscommunications and such, you are doing some pretty good things.

All of the pieces are there, unlike last year. In my opinion. We'll see if it comes to fruition in the weeks to come.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

All of the pieces are there, unlike last year. In my opinion. We'll see if it comes to fruition in the weeks to come.

Except for Jordy, we have the same pieces as we did last year - Jones + Cook + more experience for the younger WR's. So again, if Jordy was the missing link, which was the theory last year, then we can all breath a collective sigh of relief or can we?

 

[PackAttack12]

Except for Jordy, we have the same pieces as we did last year - Jones + Cook + more experience for the younger WR's. So again, if Jordy was the missing link, which was the theory last year, then we can all breath a collective sigh of relief or can we?

I haven't been uptight the entire time about this team. The rest can breathe a sigh of relief when they feel comfortable I suppose, but I'm sitting over here chillin'. Not worried in the least.

It's not so much that all we are adding is Jordy and Cook, which in and of itself are huge (bonafide outside threat, bonafide threat between the numbers in the middle of the field. But it's also about getting Cobb back in the slot, its about removing some of the pressure and responsibility from Adams, it's about the overall health of the offense (so far). It's about each and every player being in a position they are comfortable in. It's about Lacy slimming down and being more elusive, it's about McCarthy calling the plays again (not just midseason on). All of the elements that were missing last year.

Pieces + cohesiveness will equal success soon. For the first time since early last season, I'm not worried about the O-Line, I'm not worried about our receivers, I'm not worried about Rodgers running for his life from pressure, I'm not worried about us having enough firepower, etc.

 

[OldSchool101]

Actually, it's been the years that we started slow that were our best finishes under Aaron Rodgers leadership
2010: started 2-2 and win SB
2014: started 2-2 and lost in NFC Championship in OT
I think we all want to go undefeated but these are 2 examples where a slow start really didn't really affect us adversely
Sometimes a few minor setbacks gives a team more motivation to work harder which in turn produces winning momentum

 

[Poppa San]

it's about McCarthy calling the plays again

McCarthy took back play calling because the offense was in a funk. It is still in a funk. His play calling obviously is not helping. Our offense last looked "good" when Clemens called the plays in the first few games last season before we played really good defenses about mid season. Then McCarthy blinked on his off season call to let someone else call the shots instead of letting him work it out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for looking that up Captain and I am only on my first cup of coffee, so I could be thinking the stats through wrong, but if you only score a TD on an ave. of 34% of the time in that situation, wouldn't it make more sense to kick a field goal? I realize the entire calculation is lot more complicated then just that one number and probably increases as your position on the field on 4th down is closer to the end zone. While the results Sunday night could have gone either way and MM could have looked like a gutsy genius had the Packers converted and eventually scored the game winning touchdown, I'm trotting Crosby in and hopefully tying a close defensive game on the road in that situation.

Absolutely agree that kicking the field goal, especially outside of the 10-yard line, is the right decision in most cases.

Most of the problem right now is that Rodgers only got 2 preseason series before starting the regular season.

If that's the only reason for the offense struggling how do you explain Bradford looking way more confortable running the Vikings offense???

It's about Lacy slimming down and being more elusive.

Lacy doesn't look any slimmer or more elusive than last season.

 

[PackAttack12]

If that's the only reason for the offense struggling how do you explain Bradford looking way more confortable running the Vikings offense???

Not sure how you deduced 'only' from 'most of', but okay.

Lacy doesn't look any slimmer or more elusive than last season.

I mean he's not AP, but yes. He looks better to me.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure how you deduced 'only' from 'most of', but okay.

Really, semantics is what you want to talk about in this case??? Well, let me put it another way for you then.

If preseason snaps are that important (BTW I believe the Packers should have played their starters more often) how is it possible Bradford looked way better than Rodgers on Sunday???

 

[yooperpackfan]

Really, semantics is what you want to talk about in this case??? Well, let me put it another way for you then.

If preseason snaps are that important (BTW I believe the Packers should have played their starters more often) how is it possible Bradford looked way better than Rodgers on Sunday???

Or the Patriots 3rd string rookie to destroy one of the most highly thought of defenses in the league?

 

[PackAttack12]

Really, semantics is what you want to talk about in this case??? Well, let me put it another way for you then.

If preseason snaps are that important (BTW I believe the Packers should have played their starters more often) how is it possible Bradford looked way better than Rodgers on Sunday???

You're funny.

My theory is that Bradford probably didn't have a full playbook, probably kept things pretty simple for the most part. Also, did you not see the separation Diggs was getting from our corners? Compare that to how tight the coverages were on our receivers. It's pretty easy for a quarterback to look good if A) he has time to throw the football and B) he has receivers getting open. Diggs was picking our secondary to pieces. All of their guys really were doing a good job of getting open, but Diggs was basically a one man wrecking crew. You mean to tell me that if Rodgers was behind center for Minnesota in that game that he wouldn't have had at least as good of a game as Bradford? Please.

When you take two things into consideration for Green Bay - 1. Minnesota was playing a lot of press coverages that, in many instances, our receivers were not about to break free from, and then 2. the pressure that Minnesota was getting on Rodgers. If no one breaks open off of those routes in a timely fashion, what is Rodgers supposed to do when he has 6 guys flying at his face?

Now that wasn't the case for the entire game, but it certainly was on many occasions. If you want to say that we should have been doing a better job at calling plays to beat that press coverage and Rodgers should take some culpability for that, then I can get with that.

Again, I'm not insinuating that Rodgers had this incredible game. He flat out missed some receivers. Two of those could have been touchdowns when Adams and Jordy both had beaten their man (on the rare instance) and Rodgers overthrew them. There were a couple slant and crossing patterns where he threw it over the head of Cobb. But in those instances, he just flat out missed. What else do you want me to say? He had an off game throwing the football, and then when you consider the miscommunication breakdowns on top of that, along with the inability for receivers to consistently create separation, and THEN when you consider a laughably awful running game (by the way we need to get the hell rid of that damn toss play) you are going to have some problems.

Now whether or not I did a good enough job explaining why I feel like Bradford looked better than Rodgers to your liking, I'm not sure. But that's what I saw with my eyes. And this much I know for a fact. You swap the two quarterbacks in that game and Rodgers would have had the better statistical game.

I keep saying. Fine tuning, building cohesiveness. Rodgers himself says that the timing is just barely off right now and with the offense we run if the timing and communication is barely off, then it's going to look much worse than what it is and it's going to lead people to believe that we are much further off than what we really are.

And I have no reason to doubt Aaron Rodgers. Not about to start now either. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You're funny.

My theory is that Bradford probably didn't have a full playbook, probably kept things pretty simple for the most part. Also, did you not see the separation Diggs was getting from our corners? Compare that to how tight the coverages were on our receivers. It's pretty easy for a quarterback to look good if A) he has time to throw the football and B) he has receivers getting open. Diggs was picking our secondary to pieces. All of their guys really were doing a good job of getting open, but Diggs was basically a one man wrecking crew. You mean to tell me that if Rodgers was behind center for Minnesota in that game that he wouldn't have had at least as good of a game as Bradford? Please.

When you take two things into consideration for Green Bay - 1. Minnesota was playing a lot of press coverages that, in many instances, our receivers were not about to break free from, and then 2. the pressure that Minnesota was getting on Rodgers. If no one breaks open off of those routes in a timely fashion, what is Rodgers supposed to do when he has 6 guys flying at his face?

Now that wasn't the case for the entire game, but it certainly was on many occasions. If you want to say that we should have been doing a better job at calling plays to beat that press coverage and Rodgers should take some culpability for that, then I can get with that.

Again, I'm not insinuating that Rodgers had this incredible game. He flat out missed some receivers. Two of those could have been touchdowns when Adams and Jordy both had beaten their man (on the rare instance) and Rodgers overthrew them. There were a couple slant and crossing patterns where he threw it over the head of Cobb. But in those instances, he just flat out missed. What else do you want me to say? He had an off game throwing the football, and then when you consider the miscommunication breakdowns on top of that, along with the inability for receivers to consistently create separation, and THEN when you consider a laughably awful running game (by the way we need to get the hell rid of that damn toss play) you are going to have some problems.

Now whether or not I did a good enough job explaining why I feel like Bradford looked better than Rodgers to your liking, I'm not sure. But that's what I saw with my eyes. And this much I know for a fact. You swap the two quarterbacks in that game and Rodgers would have had the better statistical game.

I keep saying. Fine tuning, building cohesiveness. Rodgers himself says that the timing is just barely off right now and with the offense we run if the timing and communication is barely off, then it's going to look much worse than what it is and it's going to lead people to believe that we are much further off than what we really are.

And I have no reason to doubt Aaron Rodgers. Not about to start now either. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer.

By no means did I argue that Bradford is a superior quarterback compared to Rodgers. The point I was trying to make is that the Packers offense is struggling for various reasons which mostly wouldn't have been corrected by giving the starter more playing time during the preseason.

As a side note, Rodgers had a terrible day at Minnesota and in that shape I'm not sure he would have been able to hit the broad side of a barn consistently. Therefore I don't believe he would have had a better game than Bradford even playing with Diggs that night.

 

[PackAttack12]

By no means did I argue that Bradford is a superior quarterback compared to Rodgers. The point I was trying to make is that the Packers offense is struggling for various reasons which mostly wouldn't have been corrected by giving the starter more playing time during the preseason.

As a side note, Rodgers had a terrible day at Minnesota and in that shape I'm not sure he would have been able to hit the broad side of a barn consistently.

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree.

One thing we both can certainly agree on is that we hope like hell this isn't a recurring issue as the games go by and that we see a much different offense on Sunday.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

By no means did I argue that Bradford is a superior quarterback compared to Rodgers. The point I was trying to make is that the Packers offense is struggling for various reasons which mostly wouldn't have been corrected by giving the starter more playing time during the preseason.

As a side note, Rodgers had a terrible day at Minnesota and in that shape I'm not sure he would have been able to hit the broad side of a barn consistently.

This is the conundrum I am in with the whole offense. How many times in the last 11 months have we heard "timing is off", "we need to work on that", "we need to all be on the same page". So......if this is in fact the case, which I no longer truly believe it is, wouldn't that prompt the HC to say "sorry guys, until you can show me in a real game situation that you have it together, suit up for preseason!" I'm not saying play all 4 quarters in all 4 games, but come on, MM treated our offense like glass shoes that were sitting on a shelf all shined and polished ready for the ball.

Do I have faith that they can turn this offense around, yes, but less then I did last December.

I'm not pushing for this by any means, but I wish I had a crystal ball and could see the Lions game with Hundley under center......just to see the results. Again.....by no means would I suggest actually doing this.

 

[swhitset]

This is the conundrum I am in with the whole offense. How many times in the last 11 months have we heard "timing is off", "we need to work on that", "we need to all be on the same page". So......if this is in fact the case, which I no longer truly believe it is, wouldn't that prompt the HC to say "sorry guys, until you can show me in a real game situation that you have it together, suit up for preseason!" I'm not saying play all 4 quarters in all 4 games, but come on, MM treated our offense like glass shoes that were sitting on a shelf all shined and polished ready for the ball.

Do I have faith that they can turn this offense around, yes, but less then I did last December.

I'm not pushing for this by any means, but I wish I had a crystal ball and could see the Lions game with Hundley under center......just to see the results. Again.....by no means would I suggest actually doing this.

I'm not actually serious either, but I may be closer than you are. After seeing how many open receivers Rodgers missed and or flat out ignored.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not actually serious either, but I may be closer than you are. After seeing how many open receivers Rodgers missed and or flat out ignored.

My only rationale in saying it and it being a "crystal ball" thing, is trying to find out just how much of the passing game issues are on Rodgers as well as a possible wake-up call to #12 if that is the case. But again, I was putting together a plastic model of AR at the time that I typed that and think I may have inhaled too much glue.

 

[PackAttack12]

I sound like a broken record, but all of this skepticism on Rodgers is going to look so silly very, very soon.

Can't wait.

 

[PackerDNA]

I sound like a broken record, but all of this skepticism on Rodgers is going to look so silly very, very soon.

Can't wait.

Been a year and counting now. Give us a prediction on what Year of our Lord this great event will happen.

 

[PackAttack12]

Been a year and counting now. Give us a prediction on what Year of our Lord this great event will happen.

Not taking the bait. If people seriously don't understand the difference between what happened last year and what has transpired so far this year then I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't been stated already.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I sound like a broken record, but all of this skepticism on Rodgers is going to look so silly very, very soon. Can't wait.

Define "very, very soon" please. Sunday? 1 week, 2 weeks? When should we all expect to look like fools for this "skepticism"?

I think there are very few Packer fans who don't think AR is a FHOF QB and that this probably will turn out to be just a blip in his career, but you would have to be an Ostrich with his head in the sand to not see that something is wrong with the complete package that Aaron used to bring. This isn't just a few games or AR playing injured, this is AR getting rattled, missing receivers and statistically speaking, having some really poor games.

So if you want to call it skepticism and keep saying "this will blow over", so be it. However, I think anyone outside of GB may tell you that something is up with Aaron and who knows how or when its going to get fixed when nobody knows what it really is.

I googled "Aaron Rodgers playing poorly" and these are the first 3 things that popped up.....all recent articles. BTW I didn't even bother reading them, I have read too much on the subject as it is. My point is AR's poor play is on a lot of people's minds.

http://totalpackers.com/2016/09/bad-aaron-rodgers-gotten/

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/aaron-rodgers-stats-mediocre-green-bay-packers

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-...on-rodgers-but-he-knows-he-can-133241728.html

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not taking the bait. If people seriously don't understand the difference between what happened last year and what has transpired so far this year then I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't been stated already.

So we saw the new revised version of AR on Sunday night in MN? I really hope not. Last year I was more likely to blame the passing issues on the WR's and coaches, this year and especially after Sundays game, I'm starting to second guess myself on who to put that blame on.

I get your point, we all want him to come out of this funk, but some aren't even acknowledging that he is in a funk and you appear to be part of that camp. So yeah, you eventually will be able to hunt some of us down and say "see I told you so", I have no doubt about that, I just want to know when. I like my crow with salt and pepper.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not taking the bait. If people seriously don't understand the difference between what happened last year and what has transpired so far this year then I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't been stated already.

The reasons for Rodgers struggling this season might be different than in 2015 but the results have mostly be the same over the last 14 games. I expect him to get out of his slump at some point as well, hopefully within the next few weeks, but there's reason to be concerned.

 

[Half Empty]

I sound like a broken record, but all of this skepticism on Rodgers is going to look so silly very, very soon.

Can't wait

Neither can the rest of us.

 

[PackAttack12]

The reasons for Rodgers struggling this season might be different than in 2015 but the results have mostly be the same over the last 14 games. I expect him to get out of his slump at some point as well, hopefully within the next few weeks, but there's reason to be concerned.

The bolded portion is 100% accurate. Couldn't agree more, and that's all that I was really trying to get at. That's why I am not as concerned as most. Not to regurgitate previously made comments, but just briefly: No Jordy, injuries and sporadic offensive line play, a fat, unproductive Eddie Lacy, two different play callers, a below average tight end in R. Rodgers (thanks for the Hail Mary catch though), Cobb playing out of his comfort zone, receivers routinely not gaining separation, etc. And even with that said, Rodgers found a way to somehow manage 31 TD's to 8 picks, win a playoff game, and get a team to OT with a chance to get to the NFC championship game with no Jordy, no Adams, and no Cobb after the 1st quarter. He's throwing to a dude with a hoodie, and 2 guys he threw how many passes to for the full season?

No other quarterback in that circumstance, given the system and personnel, could have accomplished that. And Rodgers didn't touch the football in OT either.

My whole point in bring that up: None of those things are issues this year. Jordy is back, although not yet fully acclimated, O-Line seems at least formidable even though they struggled at times against a great D, Lacy has at least got a little pop and burst back, McCarthy will be the play caller, Jared Cook will be a monster when all is said and done, Cobb is back in the slot.

So like you said, the two situations are far different, and patience is going to have to be practiced in this instance.

To answer the question of when this team will return to "form", depends on what you are referring to. I think it's possible that the offense could explode against a weak and depleted Detroit team, but I would expect something more like 31 points-ish. Rodgers 19 of 27 because I think we will try establishing the run, and I think it will be successful. I say Rodgers goes 19 of 27ish for roughly 280 yards. Nothing eye popping, but moving in the right direction. I would be shocked if this offense isn't an absolute well oiled machine before our next road game, and I expect to see incremental improvements, although I would love to see an absolute explosion!

All being said though, we're going to be fine. I still feel like we are in a great position to get a 1st round bye and maybe even still finish with the best record in the conference, due to how everyone else has looked so far.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The bolded portion is 100% accurate. Couldn't agree more, and that's all that I was really trying to get at. That's why I am not as concerned as most. Not to regurgitate previously made comments, but just briefly: No Jordy, injuries and sporadic offensive line play, a fat, unproductive Eddie Lacy, two different play callers, a below average tight end in R. Rodgers (thanks for the Hail Mary catch though), Cobb playing out of his comfort zone, receivers routinely not gaining separation, etc. And even with that said, Rodgers found a way to somehow manage 31 TD's to 8 picks, win a playoff game, and get a team to OT with a chance to get to the NFC championship game with no Jordy, no Adams, and no Cobb after the 1st quarter. He's throwing to a dude with a hoodie, and 2 guys he threw how many passes to for the full season?

My whole point in bring that up: None of those things are issues this year. Jordy is back, although not yet fully acclimated, O-Line seems at least formidable even though they struggled at times against a great D, Lacy has at least got a little pop and burst back, McCarthy will be the play caller, Jared Cook will be a monster when all is said and done, Cobb is back in the slot.

Actually I'm more concerned about the offense struggling during the first two games of this season because the reasons for it are different than last year. The unit doesn't have the excuse of Nelson not playing, Rodgers as well as several receivers being injured and Lacy being out of shape (although I'm not convinced he's in any better than in 2015).

All of last season fans were told that the offense will get back on track once Nelson returns. So far that hasn't happened. Therefore there's reason to be worried.

With that being said I expect the Packers offense to perform on a high level vs. the Lions on Sunday. I wouldn't put too much stock into this game though as the Lions defense is one of the worst in the league to begin with and are probably missing several important starters.

So like you said, the two situations are far different, and patience is going to have to be practiced in this instance.

I didn't mention the situations are far different but might be.

 

[PackerDNA]

Not taking the bait. If people seriously don't understand the difference between what happened last year and what has transpired so far this year then I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't been stated already.

If you can't seriously see and understand that this is not the same guy anymore and is - over a prolonged period of time- having serious issues with technique, happy feet, throwing off his back foot, decision making, etc,etc, such as you'd expect from a rookie from a div.3 school- then I don't know what to say to you either.